I hear all the FFP wanna bees on this forum. They basically say if the scope is not first focal plane, its junk, and its even more junk as a long range hunting optic. While even I admit FFP has a place, as a competition scope in a setting where you will be taking lots of shots at distance. The short comings in a hunting situation are undeniable, typically only 1 shot needed. John burns, piped in on another thread about leupold and it got me thinking. While I have poked at john over the years for his leupold fan boy status. I will admit he actually does way more practical long range hunting, in actual western public land settings than all but a very few on this forum. There is simply no substitute for public lands and having access to them for long range hunting experience. Its a different world than the gun range most people long range shoot on.
so watch these videos all done with a junk SFP reticle scope, I mean who woulda thought it possible? this isn't a tactical shoot, long range hunting isn't raining out 10 rounds from a mag box fed chassis rifle. Its taking one shot, SFP scope on max power is what you want, to take one shot. there needs to be some sort of bible when it comes to choosing the right scope for the right use. Tactical competition, FFP long range hunting, SFP. each scope is a trade off, each scope will be good at one thing and poor at the other job.
I don't think anyone in that other thread said that SFPs are "junk": just that FFPs are more simple for the KISS folks, like myself. I don't have enough experience with varying reticle sub tensions to have the confidence that John does in them. I'm learning though. They obviously work for him (and I suspect for you too), and I haven't seen anybody state that there was anything at all wrong with using SFPs if you're comfortable with them.
I think Scenarshooter uses only FFP scopes, if that has any bearing on your statement: "The short comings in a hunting situation are undeniable".
Use what works for you. A lot of folks do pretty well with both of them.
At the end of the day why does it matter what the other guy uses?
exactly, I agree,
there is just so much elitism around here regarding this subject. every optic trades off something. it could be large objective and good at low light, or small and poor at low light. You can't really make a scope do everything well. I show these videos of john making these shots to show what is possible.
Hey CC, I can give you Hodnett's contact #. Maybe you can call him, get him to watch it, and hopefully he can comprehend what is possible. Let me know.
Hey CC, I can give you Hodnett's contact #. Maybe you can call him, get him to watch it, and hopefully he can comprehend what is possible. Let me know.
who is hodnett, and does he shoot in the western mountains and high deserts? its not to say one scope or another will not work, trading a reticle that sucks at low power is a total non starter in a long range hunting optic, its just not! The reason FFP works so well in competition is because its most likely the people using the scope aren't using the scope on the lowest power setting. (If I am shooting in those situations, EVEN I WANT FFP, IMAGINE THAT! ) They are most likely using it on mid to high power, a hunting scope should be set on lowest power and only dialed up if needed. The reality is even the type of shooting I showed john doing, I would bet and wager he does a fair amount of shooting and killing at ranges that don't require dialing, in fact most of his shots. In that case he probably leaves the scope lowest power and just makes the shot and he doesn't give a crap about reticle subtensions and how they match, You don't need to make a wind hold for a 300 yard shot, unless its a p dog, but we are talking big game here.
I might actually like FFP if I am shooting P dogs, actually I think I would prefer it, if I was only going to shoot them with a particular combo.
CC: That sure looks like a "Gold Ring" on that scope (Leupold?) the Coyote Hunter was shooting to kill that Coyote at 1,018 (one thousand and eighteen!) yards! How can that possibly be (directed at the very few Leupold naysayers on this site!)? Long live Leupold & Stevens - a fine American Company. Hold into the wind VarmintGuy
Hey CC, I can give you Hodnett's contact #. Maybe you can call him, get him to watch it, and hopefully he can comprehend what is possible. Let me know.
who is hodnett, and does he shoot in the western mountains and high deserts? its not to say one scope or another will not work, trading a reticle that sucks at low power is a total non starter in a long range hunting optic, its just not! The reason FFP works so well in competition is because its most likely the people using the scope aren't using the scope on the lowest power setting. (If I am shooting in those situations, EVEN I WANT FFP, IMAGINE THAT! ) They are most likely using it on mid to high power, a hunting scope should be set on lowest power and only dialed up if needed. The reality is even the type of shooting I showed john doing, I would bet and wager he does a fair amount of shooting and killing at ranges that don't require dialing, in fact most of his shots. In that case he probably leaves the scope lowest power and just makes the shot and he doesn't give a crap about reticle subtensions and how they match, You don't need to make a wind hold for a 300 yard shot, unless its a p dog, but we are talking big game here.
I might actually like FFP if I am shooting P dogs, actually I think I would prefer it, if I was only going to shoot them with a particular combo.
Comparing yourself and Burns to Todd Hodnett is like comparing rookie ball with the big leagues. I know your googlefu works, as I've seen some of your stupid youtube videos. Google it, learn something, take notes.
Hey CC, I can give you Hodnett's contact #. Maybe you can call him, get him to watch it, and hopefully he can comprehend what is possible. Let me know.
who is hodnett, and does he shoot in the western mountains and high deserts? .
Hey CC, I can give you Hodnett's contact #. Maybe you can call him, get him to watch it, and hopefully he can comprehend what is possible. Let me know.
who is hodnett, and does he shoot in the western mountains and high deserts? its not to say one scope or another will not work, trading a reticle that sucks at low power is a total non starter in a long range hunting optic, its just not! The reason FFP works so well in competition is because its most likely the people using the scope aren't using the scope on the lowest power setting. (If I am shooting in those situations, EVEN I WANT FFP, IMAGINE THAT! ) They are most likely using it on mid to high power, a hunting scope should be set on lowest power and only dialed up if needed. The reality is even the type of shooting I showed john doing, I would bet and wager he does a fair amount of shooting and killing at ranges that don't require dialing, in fact most of his shots. In that case he probably leaves the scope lowest power and just makes the shot and he doesn't give a crap about reticle subtensions and how they match, You don't need to make a wind hold for a 300 yard shot, unless its a p dog, but we are talking big game here.
I might actually like FFP if I am shooting P dogs, actually I think I would prefer it, if I was only going to shoot them with a particular combo.
Comparing yourself and Burns to Todd Hodnett is like comparing rookie ball with the big leagues. I know your googlefu works, as I've seen some of your stupid youtube videos. Google it, learn something, take notes.
I didn't compare myself to anyone. I looked at some hodnett videos and you make my point without even knowing it. BTW JG, I like you, so don't take this personal. Notice the guns todd has, all tactical rifles. Those aren't hunting rifles. if I am him I want FFP for his type of use as well. Remember raining down multiple shots at distance, from a fix position. Also I might add in normal lighting conditions.
JWP, the downside of FFP in a hunting scope is the reticle sucks on the lowest power, those precious ticks that match up at ALL powers aren't even usable in many cases. Some scopes are worse than others. I think the 3x9 SWFA is a decent scope for managing both situations but the reality is, if you want to shoot 500+ with it, you are going to be on 9x. It might as well be SFP, have a bolder reticle on 3x.
Remember I am not saying one or the other format of reticle is junk, I am just saying each has their place. I am also saying in a hunting scope FFP is most likely a poor choice, with the exception of colony varmints. remember multiple shots from a fixed location, in good daylight. that is Pdog hunting!.
In my area we have something called the 1000 yard milk jug challenge. you have 3 shots to hit a milk jug at 1000 yards. I think I am going to do it with a couple of my guns just show whats possible with boring SFP reticles. Burns has me beat, my longest coyote kill is 991 yards , just south of wamsutter wyoming. burns probably knows the area.
Hey CC, I can give you Hodnett's contact #. Maybe you can call him, get him to watch it, and hopefully he can comprehend what is possible. Let me know.
who is hodnett, and does he shoot in the western mountains and high deserts? its not to say one scope or another will not work, trading a reticle that sucks at low power is a total non starter in a long range hunting optic, its just not! The reason FFP works so well in competition is because its most likely the people using the scope aren't using the scope on the lowest power setting. (If I am shooting in those situations, EVEN I WANT FFP, IMAGINE THAT! ) They are most likely using it on mid to high power, a hunting scope should be set on lowest power and only dialed up if needed. The reality is even the type of shooting I showed john doing, I would bet and wager he does a fair amount of shooting and killing at ranges that don't require dialing, in fact most of his shots. In that case he probably leaves the scope lowest power and just makes the shot and he doesn't give a crap about reticle subtensions and how they match, You don't need to make a wind hold for a 300 yard shot, unless its a p dog, but we are talking big game here.
I might actually like FFP if I am shooting P dogs, actually I think I would prefer it, if I was only going to shoot them with a particular combo.
Comparing yourself and Burns to Todd Hodnett is like comparing rookie ball with the big leagues. I know your googlefu works, as I've seen some of your stupid youtube videos. Google it, learn something, take notes.
I didn't compare myself to anyone. I looked at some hodnett videos and you make my point without even knowing it. BTW JG, I like you, so don't take this personal. Notice the guns todd has, all tactical rifles. Those aren't hunting rifles. if I am him I want FFP for his type of use as well. Remember raining down multiple shots at distance, from a fix position. Also I might add in normal lighting conditions.
JWP, the downside of FFP in a hunting scope is the reticle sucks on the lowest power, those precious ticks that match up at ALL powers aren't even usable in many cases. Some scopes are worse than others. I think the 3x9 SWFA is a decent scope for managing both situations but the reality is, if you want to shoot 500+ with it, you are going to be on 9x. It might as well be SFP, have a bolder reticle on 3x.
Remember I am not saying one or the other format of reticle is junk, I am just saying each has their place. I am also saying in a hunting scope FFP is most likely a poor choice, with the exception of colony varmints. remember multiple shots from a fixed location, in good daylight. that is Pdog hunting!.
In my area we have something called the 1000 yard milk jug challenge. you have 3 shots to hit a milk jug at 1000 yards. I think I am going to do it with a couple of my guns just show whats possible with boring SFP reticles. Burns has me beat, my longest coyote kill is 991 yards , just south of wamsutter wyoming. burns probably knows the area.
Your arguement defeats your position, snipers are hunters. The reticle doesn't suck on the lowest powers for me I still know where the reticle intersect and that i all i need to know kn the lowest power. i hunt and rarely set smy avoid kn the lowest power even in the woods.
I hung with both and for hunting eighter is find with me
Hey numnutz, ever heard of Bryan Litz? It's universally accepted that he is the present day ballistic god. He was involved with Hodnett to help invent the thing.
I was heavily involved in the development of the Whiz Wheel and can vouch for the accuracy of the solutions which are generated with a point mass solver and measured G7 BCs. If you have comments or questions about the Whiz Wheel, you can place those in the comments section for this Bulletin post. I’ll try to respond to your questions, time permitting.
Bryan Litz, author of Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting, is the Ballistician for Berger Bullets.
Hey numnutz, ever heard of Bryan Litz? It's universally accepted that he is the present day ballistic god. He was involved with Hodnett to help invent the thing.
I was heavily involved in the development of the Whiz Wheel and can vouch for the accuracy of the solutions which are generated with a point mass solver and measured G7 BCs. If you have comments or questions about the Whiz Wheel, you can place those in the comments section for this Bulletin post. I’ll try to respond to your questions, time permitting.
Bryan Litz, author of Applied Ballistics for Long Range Shooting, is the Ballistician for Berger Bullets.
LOL.
"Whiz Wheel".
What a hot mess.
There's a reason Walt Berger asked me to write the VLD Hunting section for the Berger Reloading manual and it had nothing to do with "Wheel Whizzing".
So, I have a rangefinder, a SFP scope & know my cum-ups.....................please tell me again why I absolutely can't hunt w/o & must have a FFP scope, which w/o a doubt, beyond a shadow of a doubt, sucks donkey balls in low light at nearer range(s) on lower power setting.
Can't wait for the answers............................
Wait, I know...............it's faster, as if I'm going to take a quick 800-1,000 yard shot.
So, I have a rangefinder, a SFP scope & know my cum-ups.....................please tell me again why I absolutely can't hunt w/o & must have a FFP scope, which w/o a doubt, beyond a shadow of a doubt, sucks donkey balls in low light at nearer range(s) on lower power setting.
Can't wait for the answers............................
Wait, I know...............it's faster, as if I'm going to take a quick 800-1,000 yard shot.
Please............................
MM
LOL.
Please read more internet and shoot less critters.
FFP at low zoom power and in low light works great on the net but very much less so in the real world.
So, I have a rangefinder, a SFP scope & know my cum-ups.....................please tell me again why I absolutely can't hunt w/o & must have a FFP scope, which w/o a doubt, beyond a shadow of a doubt, sucks donkey balls in low light at nearer range(s) on lower power setting.
Can't wait for the answers............................
Wait, I know...............it's faster, as if I'm going to take a quick 800-1,000 yard shot.
Please............................
MM
I hunt with both and I have no idea why anyone struggles with either one.
So, I have a rangefinder, a SFP scope & know my cum-ups.....................please tell me again why I absolutely can't hunt w/o & must have a FFP scope, which w/o a doubt, beyond a shadow of a doubt, sucks donkey balls in low light at nearer range(s) on lower power setting.
Can't wait for the answers............................
Wait, I know...............it's faster, as if I'm going to take a quick 800-1,000 yard shot.
So, I have a rangefinder, a SFP scope & know my cum-ups.....................please tell me again why I absolutely can't hunt w/o & must have a FFP scope, which w/o a doubt, beyond a shadow of a doubt, sucks donkey balls in low light at nearer range(s) on lower power setting.
Can't wait for the answers............................
Wait, I know...............it's faster, as if I'm going to take a quick 800-1,000 yard shot.
Please............................
MM
LOL.
Please read more internet and shoot less critters.
FFP at low zoom power and in low light works great on the net but very much less so in the real world.
Never fear, John, there will be a couple of predictables (who will remain un-named) who will show up to enlighten us & also tell us what absolute dumb-fuc^cks we are for asking such stupid questions.
So, I have a rangefinder, a SFP scope & know my cum-ups.....................please tell me again why I absolutely can't hunt w/o & must have a FFP scope, which w/o a doubt, beyond a shadow of a doubt, sucks donkey balls in low light at nearer range(s) on lower power setting.
Can't wait for the answers............................
Wait, I know...............it's faster, as if I'm going to take a quick 800-1,000 yard shot.
Please............................
MM
I hunt with both and I have no idea why anyone struggles with either one.
Only if you have an illuminated reticle.......................... just sayin.
Some people are "shooters" most are not . Ghd not crowd relies on gizmos
Originally Posted by alwaysoutdoors
My scope is better than your scope regardless what scope you have. 😂😆
The real question is do you have a "Whizzy Wheel"?
I really wonder if any game animal died within 1 Mile of a "Whizzer Wheel"?
How about it JG?
Litz and Hodnett approved.
I've seen one in person but don't own one. I think they're pretty ingenious though. I'd bet it's much more successful than Graybull Precision was for you though.
Some people are "shooters" most are not . Ghd not crowd relies on gizmos
Originally Posted by alwaysoutdoors
My scope is better than your scope regardless what scope you have. 😂😆
The real question is do you have a "Whizzy Wheel"?
I really wonder if any game animal died within 1 Mile of a "Whizzer Wheel"?
How about it JG?
Litz and Hodnett approved.
I've seen one in person but don't own one. I think they're pretty ingenious though. I'd bet it's much more successful than Graybull Precision was for you though.
What's the bet?
I got bought out and am pretty sure the $ involved swamped "Whizzy Wheel " bucks.
You got the the "Whizzy Wheel" financials or are you just talking out you azz as per normal?
litz is pretty much the polar opposite of the vibe I pick up from hodnett. I prefer litz's style. I have bought his CD's, app and books. highly recommended. Tactical shooters are kinda like oil and water to me. its tuff for me to see the value of these chassis rifles with all sorts of crap hanging off them. a 1# detachable scope base thats 3" higher than the top of the action, with a 40mm tube scope or some other truck axle tube scope that is over 3 pounds. Its like too many video games have been watched. Oh lets also top the gun off with a panzer faust muzzle brake to tame the recoil of their 6.5 creed even though the gun is 20 pounds.
FFP sucks on the lowest power. The reason its as popular as it is, is because most shooters aren't using their scopes that often on the lowest power, Why because they are using them at the gun range mostly. peering of the edge of a finger canyon at first light, when animals are most likely to be wondering around, you want a bold reticle and you want to be able to make an off hand shot if you have to. and the argument about the SFP scope being set to the wrong power and causing a long range miss because the ticks don't line up. How about the FFP scope being set to, too high of a power and you struggle to get on the animal at first light as the bull of your dreams flashes through the quaking aspens? or how about the reticle sucking and lowest power and you can't tell a quaking aspen branch from shoulder of the deer or elk?
I've actually been to Hodnetts training twice and while I don't know how much hunting he does I know he mentioned some long range kills. we even got to go shoot some hogs which was a blast.
I can also vouch for the fact that the range we shot on down there is one windy SOB.
I've also used the Whiz Wheel for training. We ran a course of fire on an unknown distance range using the Whiz Wheel for getting come ups/holdovers (using H58 Horus reticle). It does work and as part of a PACE plan for data it's lightweight and durable.
I have a ballistics calculator app (actually more than one), I have JBM Ballistics & Litz'z data; I have a rangefinder & a scope with turrets & know my cum-ups to the 1K mark & have a print out of same.
What is the Whiz Wheel going to do for me that I don't already have?
Doesn't matter whether it's good or bad or if it works or doesn't...............what's it going to tell me that I don't already have access to knowing?
I've actually been to Hodnetts training twice and while I don't know how much hunting he does I know he mentioned some long range kills. we even got to go shoot some hogs which was a blast.
I can also vouch for the fact that the range we shot on down there is one windy SOB.
I've also used the Whiz Wheel for training. We ran a course of fire on an unknown distance range using the Whiz Wheel for getting come ups/holdovers (using H58 Horus reticle). It does work and as part of a PACE plan for data it's lightweight and durable.
I've got one floating around here somewhere.
Primary Alternate Contingency Emergency
So the "Whizzy Wheel'" is pretty much worse than useless for hunting?
I thought we had already determined that but thanks.
I was looking at it from a military standpoint. Unfortunately not everyone slotted as a sniper has the time or training or drive that they need. They don't all have their comeups or holdovers memorized. Getting them to use/make a printout was an exercise in futility most of the time.
You have a PACE plan although you don't call it that. I'm not saying that you need a Whiz Wheel I'm saying they are a viable tool.
Think about like this PDA/phone takes a dump so you grab your data cards only to find the rain soaked them to the point of unreadability or whatever so you go to memorized holds. THe Whiz Wheel is just another option.
I've actually been to Hodnetts training twice and while I don't know how much hunting he does I know he mentioned some long range kills. we even got to go shoot some hogs which was a blast.
I can also vouch for the fact that the range we shot on down there is one windy SOB.
I've also used the Whiz Wheel for training. We ran a course of fire on an unknown distance range using the Whiz Wheel for getting come ups/holdovers (using H58 Horus reticle). It does work and as part of a PACE plan for data it's lightweight and durable.
I've got one floating around here somewhere.
Primary Alternate Contingency Emergency
So the "Whizzy Wheel'" is pretty much worse than useless for hunting?
I thought we had already determined that but thanks.
I don't know if I would say useless but better than nothing. It's definitely not as fast as DA cards.
I was looking at it from a military standpoint. Unfortunately not everyone slotted as a sniper has the time or training or drive that they need. They don't all have their comeups or holdovers memorized. Getting them to use/make a printout was an exercise in futility most of the time.
You have a PACE plan although you don't call it that. I'm not saying that you need a Whiz Wheel I'm saying they are a viable tool.
Think about like this PDA/phone takes a dump so you grab your data cards only to find the rain soaked them to the point of unreadability or whatever so you go to memorized holds. THe Whiz Wheel is just another option.
Ok, but that would be a lot of negative coindince's to all have happen; so it's just more of the same, another alternative...............I can buy that.
What pisses me off is know-it-all's pissing down my neck & trying to convince me it's raining.
litz is pretty much the polar opposite of the vibe I pick up from hodnett. I prefer litz's style. I have bought his CD's, app and books. highly recommended. Tactical shooters are kinda like oil and water to me. its tuff for me to see the value of these chassis rifles with all sorts of crap hanging off them. a 1# detachable scope base thats 3" higher than the top of the action, with a 40mm tube scope or some other truck axle tube scope that is over 3 pounds. Its like too many video games have been watched. Oh lets also top the gun off with a panzer faust muzzle brake to tame the recoil of their 6.5 creed even though the gun is 20 pounds. FFP sucks on the lowest power. The reason its as popular as it is, is because most shooters aren't using their scopes that often on the lowest power, Why because they are using them at the gun range mostly. peering of the edge of a finger canyon at first light, when animals are most likely to be wondering around, you want a bold reticle and you want to be able to make an off hand shot if you have to. and the argument about the SFP scope being set to the wrong power and causing a long range miss because the ticks don't line up. How about the FFP scope being set to, too high of a power and you struggle to get on the animal at first light as the bull of your dreams flashes through the quaking aspens? or how about the reticle sucking and lowest power and you can't tell a quaking aspen branch from shoulder of the deer or elk?
I think your statement is a little too far reaching. Others have already said that a well designed reticle is the key, whether it’s FFP or SFP. These are the only comparisons I have, but I have 2 Nightforce NXS 2.5-10x compacts with mil-dot reticles and 2 Bushnell LRHS 3-12x. I’ve shot and hunted a lot with the NXS and have recently started using the LRHS scopes. With scopes set at 3x, I compare the reticles at very low light and the NXS mil-dot is almost invisible without the illumination. The LRHS at 3x in the same light condition is a duplex reticle that’s easy to see and get on target. I wouldn’t be using the reticle subtensions of either scope in low light, lower power hunting conditions and the LRHS reticle easily wins. At 10x power, the NXS reticle line thickness is .13MOA and the fine center lines of the LRHS reticle is .2 moa (please correct if my numbers are wrong). When holding on targets out to 1000m, neither reticle appears to cover the target any more than the other.
Comparing these two scopes, I’d say the FFP LRHS reticle has the advantage on low power in low light hunting conditions, and has no realistic disadvantage at high power because the reticle thickness is almost the same.
I’m sure there are comparisons in favor of SFP as well, but just shows that reticle design is probably more important than whether it’s SFP or FFP.
Well said--me too mostly though I also use FFP in some optics, though for the majority of varminting I do, I rarely use a FFP on the lowest power. Have had a passion for the math that defines reticle subtension for downrange zeroing and rangefinding (even adapting it for iron sights and archery sight pins) in SFP optics. Have seen some pretty amazing things accomplished applying the math at long range, especially the inversely proportional nature of subtension vs. magnification in SFP optics.
litz is pretty much the polar opposite of the vibe I pick up from hodnett. I prefer litz's style. I have bought his CD's, app and books. highly recommended. Tactical shooters are kinda like oil and water to me. its tuff for me to see the value of these chassis rifles with all sorts of crap hanging off them. a 1# detachable scope base thats 3" higher than the top of the action, with a 40mm tube scope or some other truck axle tube scope that is over 3 pounds. Its like too many video games have been watched. Oh lets also top the gun off with a panzer faust muzzle brake to tame the recoil of their 6.5 creed even though the gun is 20 pounds. FFP sucks on the lowest power. The reason its as popular as it is, is because most shooters aren't using their scopes that often on the lowest power, Why because they are using them at the gun range mostly. peering of the edge of a finger canyon at first light, when animals are most likely to be wondering around, you want a bold reticle and you want to be able to make an off hand shot if you have to. and the argument about the SFP scope being set to the wrong power and causing a long range miss because the ticks don't line up. How about the FFP scope being set to, too high of a power and you struggle to get on the animal at first light as the bull of your dreams flashes through the quaking aspens? or how about the reticle sucking and lowest power and you can't tell a quaking aspen branch from shoulder of the deer or elk?
I think your statement is a little too far reaching. Others have already said that a well designed reticle is the key, whether it’s FFP or SFP. These are the only comparisons I have, but I have 2 Nightforce NXS 2.5-10x compacts with mil-dot reticles and 2 Bushnell LRHS 3-12x. I’ve shot and hunted a lot with the NXS and have recently started using the LRHS scopes. With scopes set at 3x, I compare the reticles at very low light and the NXS mil-dot is almost invisible without the illumination. The LRHS at 3x in the same light condition is a duplex reticle that’s easy to see and get on target. I wouldn’t be using the reticle subtensions of either scope in low light, lower power hunting conditions and the LRHS reticle easily wins. At 10x power, the NXS reticle line thickness is .13MOA and the fine center lines of the LRHS reticle is .2 moa (please correct if my numbers are wrong). When holding on targets out to 1000m, neither reticle appears to cover the target any more than the other.
Comparing these two scopes, I’d say the FFP LRHS reticle has the advantage on low power in low light hunting conditions, and has no realistic disadvantage at high power because the reticle thickness is almost the same.
I’m sure there are comparisons in favor of SFP as well, but just shows that reticle design is probably more important than whether it’s SFP or FFP.
Careful, the guys with very little real-world experience with FFP scopes are going to come back and tell you you're wrong.
This thread has been entertaining, informative, given me a lot more things to think about & look up. I may even have learned a few things. At my age & with all the gear I currently have & have used for quite a while, I'm probably not going to change much. But at least I have a better understanding of some things.
Thank you all for not turning this into an off the rails clown show. Foolishness can be fun at times & I've been guilty myself, but with every thread it just becomes BS.
Funny how we end up in the weeds with scope, rifle, bullet, cartridge, etc. when in reality there is a lot more important things to a successful hunt IMO.
Originally Posted by T_Inman
All this FFP, SFP and scope leveling talk makes me want to just hunt with open sights, or continue with my beloved upland bird hunts. My head hurts
Why anyone buys a long range scope to hunt with on its lowest power? Maters not if I'm hunting with a FFP or SFP scope I never set it on the lowest power, not even in the woods.
Use what works for you. A lot of folks do pretty well with both of them.
At the end of the day why does it matter what the other guy uses?
exactly, I agree,
there is just so much elitism around here regarding this subject. every optic trades off something. it could be large objective and good at low light, or small and poor at low light. You can't really make a scope do everything well. I show these videos of john making these shots to show what is possible.
You tend to come on the "fire" a couple times a year to push your SFP over FFP agenda.....and seem to be looking for validation, why not use whatever your happy with and let the elitist use what makes them happy!
I have used the LRTS 3-12X and ATACR 4-16 FFP scope chasing critters here in the Idaho Backcountry - and both were very good and up to the task. Now I am playing with a 2nd Focal Plane NF 2.5-10X42 NXS and so far I am equally impressed. I wouldn't feel handicaped with any of the three mentioned above.
Well, on the plus side there is now at least one person on the fire that shares CC's views, so he's got a buddy to sing Kumbaya with. Of course, they also happen to share the elitist "Legends in their own minds" type of attitude, so there's that.
We've gone through this a thousand times, CC. Exaggeration and cynicism aren't going to win you any debates. OF COURSE it's possible to make long shots with SFP scopes. Heck, I did it all the time for many years before well-designed FFP scopes become readily available. When we're discussing pros/cons of the different scope designs, we're talking about advantages and disadvantages, not saying that one absolutely works and the other doesn't. A little bit of logic goes a long way.
I have noticed that some of the "elitists" are the most vocal elitist "haters": on both sides of the board, which adds to the irony of these conversations.
Anyhow CC, I don't think that long range shots themselves have much to do with these FFP vs SFP discussions....it's varying vs fixed reticle sub-tesion for determining range (if a guy looses his rangefinder or its batteries die) or for holding windage which seems to be the major discussion.
If a guy 100% of the time knows the range and never holds for wind, I don't think these discussions would ever take place, other than (IMO) the minor issue of a reticle being too thin to see at low power in a FFP.
the point of this thread for me is actually not to pee on FFP, The point is to say scopes are a compromise, A scope should be chosen how its most likely to be used. The fact is even in a long range hunting scenario you don't say to yourself, the deer is at 400 yards, lets back up to 750 yards, so we can use the precious subtentions LOL. In reality a 3x9 with a duplex reticle will probably get it done 75% of the time. You don't purposely shoot further than you have to. getting all in a tizzy because the sub tensions don't match at low power is missing the forest through the trees. It does match at high power, since you're likely only taking one shot at the animal dialing to max power is what you should do, unless of course you are using a hubble telescope with way too much power. a big game hunting scope should not be more than 14-16x. I hear this "well designed FFP" reticle argument all the time. Most touted here IMO suck on the lowest power. the vaunted 3-12 LRHS, washes out on a curtain in broad daylight of a trade show. but the 4.5-18 version of that scope isn't bad IMO. I guess that would be a better FFP design in my mind. but look what your giving up.
don't choose your scope because of anyone else, chose your scope because its what you want!! I was talking to the head of sales for zeiss sports optics a couple months ago. I said THANK YOU! for not buying into the FFP madness and giving us these awesome SFP v4 scopes! you wanna know what he said? He said yes we need some sort of a public intervention and guideline on this and that its gotten out of hand.
in summary: when would I pick FFP 1) scope very high power, 6-24x or higher 2) if I am likely to be using the scope at medium to high power often 3) if I am only using the scope in full daylight 4) if the scope is higher power and I would often need to dial down from max power because of mirage 5) if I am shooting "movers" 6) if I am in a tactical compettion 7) if I plan to shoot lots of shots at extended ranges,(competition)
when I pick SFP
1) if I mostly carry my gun while moving place to place on the lowest power 2) when I need FOV for a quick shot 3) when I need the reticle to work in low or less than perfect light, without illumination because the freaking battery could be dead! 4) if my scope is less than 16x max power 5) if I am trying to be like john burns when I grow up!
You are still hunting through a large patch of dark timber. Bull tag in hand.
You look to a meadow just ahead of you coming out of the timber. Nothing. Nothing. Take another step and there’s a good bull 15 yards from more timber, he’s moving towards the timber slowly. You look at him for a second to make sure he is in fact a good bull.
Your buddy who is [bleep] money tells you the bull is 400 yards away. There’s a little wind. How much wind? You shoot a lot, and you think maybe 4-5 inches of drift. You don’t have more than probably 6 seconds, maybe less, to do anything. There’s conveniently a tree handy for a quick and stable rest.
What could you do? A challenging scenario no matter the equipment.
One of those things could be to watch that bull move into the timber and never see him again. I’m not saying that’s a poor choice. I certainly [bleep] hate to be hurried into quick shots. My brain gets overloaded.
One of those things is to put a 1 Mil dot on him and consider taking a shot. Because you have a 7 Mag and you sighted in 2 inches high at 100 yards and that 1 Mil dot just lined up with the 400 yard gong perfect. Maybe your scope is set to 4x or 6x because that’s what the thing is always set on.
One of those things is you could [bleep] around with your dials and magnification and miss watching the bull walking into the timber.
Maybe you’re quick enough to dial or hold with SFP. Fine with me! I like that dot at 400. And I know that I have no problem shooting an animal at 400 yards with a scope on 6x.
Me, I’m either going to take the shot or watch that bull walk into the timber through the scope.
You are still hunting through a large patch of dark timber. Bull tag in hand.
You look to a meadow just ahead of you coming out of the timber. Nothing. Nothing. Take another step and there’s a good bull 15 yards from more timber, he’s moving towards the timber slowly. You look at him for a second to make sure he is in fact a good bull.
Your buddy who is [bleep] money tells you the bull is 400 yards away. There’s a little wind. How much wind? You shoot a lot, and you think maybe 4-5 inches of drift. You don’t have more than probably 6 seconds, maybe less, to do anything. There’s conveniently a tree handy for a quick and stable rest.
What could you do? A challenging scenario no matter the equipment.
One of those things could be to watch that bull move into the timber and never see him again. I’m not saying that’s a poor choice. I certainly [bleep] hate to be hurried into quick shots. My brain gets overloaded.
One of those things is to put a 1 Mil dot on him and consider taking a shot. Because you have a 7 Mag and you sighted in 2 inches high at 100 yards and that 1 Mil dot just lined up with the 400 yard gong perfect. Maybe your scope is set to 4x or 6x because that’s what the thing is always set on.
One of those things is you could [bleep] around with your dials and magnification and miss watching the bull walking into the timber.
Maybe you’re quick enough to dial or hold with SFP. Fine with me! I like that dot at 400. And I know that I have no problem shooting an animal at 400 yards with a scope on 6x.
Me, I’m either going to take the shot or watch that bull walk into the timber through the scope.
that is a real world situation!! in fact a likely one. which brings up another subject, knowing the range quickly!! nothing beats RF binoculars. I use swaro EL range. They have directly lead to more animals being shot, including more archery kills as well. My brother in law uses the older leicas. I bet he would tell you the 190" buck wouldn't have been shot without his. The way I would handle that situation is, I normally tape a drop chart from JBM ballsitics onto my stock and or have an etched turret. The EL range gives me the distance, I give the turret a quick adjustment, its not far enough to even mess with wind, boom.
but to get to that point required some preparation, and the right equipment. EL range binoculars. chrono'd load, at minimum a drop chart taped to stock, OR ideally an etched turret and the drop chart for backup. even better is your load calibrated with actual shooting at distances to 1000 yards to verify the data from your smart phone app, I use applied ballistics. the smart phone app, with your data trued to it, thats what allowed me to give a coyote a dirt nap at 991 yards.
I'd twist my turret to 1.7 mils and grab a rest. If he stops or hesitates, he'll die. I could time that twist to 1.7, but quite sure it is less than 2 seconds. I have both sfp and ffp scopes and I'd do the same with each. This stuff doesn't really seem that hard to me.
Ur a drama lama and even responding is most likely a waste of time.
Go drop 30 animals in a day and see how quickly ur ass gets backwards running a sfp scope.
Dial for dope, slide for wind. You start dialing windage and it’ll bight you in the ass real quickly. Especially on fast action, blowing up a mob of goats in a gully and mags get empty real fast. Haven’t met a zero stop windage dial yet. Might switch tune if that happens but not likely.
I would think 400 yards on a “long range “ high powered rifle for someone used to hunting out West would not require any dialing but what do I know.....with 6 seconds to execute , I’m just not seeing ranging for distance, “dialing” for elevation, AND placing the a bullet in the boiler room. I can see ranging and placing a bullet though (holding over thus eliminating the dialing step) .
I agree though that is a realistic hunting scenario. That’s probably more than half of scenarios on a mature buck in middle TN.
About 12-15 inches (or more) drop at 400 depending on cartridge. Enough that if you don’t account for it you have a rodeo on your hands.
And somewhere between 350-400 yards is when I think most, even most here, probably have no business shooting. Just wind at that range starts doing funny things.
Certainly more than 1 system that could account for it. I don’t like dialing because it takes my eyes and attention off the animal, and what’s happening around it, like a cow that moves behind him. Doesn’t bother others. Again, fine with me whatever system you use.
Love hate with spring in Wyoming. Damn in can be [bleep], or super nice. Will lull ya a tho, cuz 25knots of wind and 30 is freezing ass cold on the stabbing board if all ya got on is some long johns and coveralls and you can’t get surface pipe in the hole. Wind straight up the v door, shaking like a [bleep] at a wrong roast, hardhat yardsaled somewhere back by the pits.
Every time I’ve been on a rig floor in that neck of the woods the drill pipe stood back sounds like a giant pipe organ.Effin a it gets windy there. One time from the junction on 20 to Douglas I couldn’t get off 3rd gear it was so dam windy.
You are still hunting through a large patch of dark timber. Bull tag in hand.
You look to a meadow just ahead of you coming out of the timber. Nothing. Nothing. Take another step and there’s a good bull 15 yards from more timber, he’s moving towards the timber slowly. You look at him for a second to make sure he is in fact a good bull.
Your buddy who is [bleep] money tells you the bull is 400 yards away. There’s a little wind. How much wind? You shoot a lot, and you think maybe 4-5 inches of drift. You don’t have more than probably 6 seconds, maybe less, to do anything. There’s conveniently a tree handy for a quick and stable rest.
What could you do? A challenging scenario.
I’d bugle, usually stops them in their tracks faster than a cow call no matter the time of year....
I made a shot similar to that this year. At 400 yards with a 7 mag in a 10-12mph wind on a bull elk the size of a billboard(ok exaggeration) I’m running the windshield. In my scope I’d Crank up the power and adjust parallax. 200 yard zero puts the load that I entered at 4.5 minutes of drop and 1.5 of wind(sorry I’m still stuck in minutes). MOAR 3rd hash down and bracket the crosshair and first windage line. I’d be more worried about judging the bull than making that shot.
the point of this thread for me is actually not to pee on FFP, The point is to say scopes are a compromise, A scope should be chosen how its most likely to be used. The fact is even in a long range hunting scenario you don't say to yourself, the deer is at 400 yards, lets back up to 750 yards, so we can use the precious subtentions LOL. In reality a 3x9 with a duplex reticle will probably get it done 75% of the time. You don't purposely shoot further than you have to. getting all in a tizzy because the sub tensions don't match at low power is missing the forest through the trees. It does match at high power, since you're likely only taking one shot at the animal dialing to max power is what you should do, unless of course you are using a hubble telescope with way too much power. a big game hunting scope should not be more than 14-16x. I hear this "well designed FFP" reticle argument all the time. Most touted here IMO suck on the lowest power. the vaunted 3-12 LRHS, washes out on a curtain in broad daylight of a trade show. but the 4.5-18 version of that scope isn't bad IMO. I guess that would be a better FFP design in my mind. but look what your giving up.
don't choose your scope because of anyone else, chose your scope because its what you want!! I was talking to the head of sales for zeiss sports optics a couple months ago. I said THANK YOU! for not buying into the FFP madness and giving us these awesome SFP v4 scopes! you wanna know what he said? He said yes we need some sort of a public intervention and guideline on this and that its gotten out of hand.
in summary: when would I pick FFP 1) scope very high power, 6-24x or higher 2) if I am likely to be using the scope at medium to high power often 3) if I am only using the scope in full daylight 4) if the scope is higher power and I would often need to dial down from max power because of mirage 5) if I am shooting "movers" 6) if I am in a tactical compettion 7) if I plan to shoot lots of shots at extended ranges,(competition)
when I pick SFP
1) if I mostly carry my gun while moving place to place on the lowest power 2) when I need FOV for a quick shot 3) when I need the reticle to work in low or less than perfect light, without illumination because the freaking battery could be dead! 4) if my scope is less than 16x max power 5) if I am trying to be like john burns when I grow up!
You seem to be the only one in this thread with such definitive claims. I’m starting to see why you don’t appear to have any credibility with most of the members on this forum.
It’s interesting to see that you came to such a strong conclusion about the 3-12 LRHS by testing it “on a curtain in broad daylight of a trade show”. Im actually using my 3-12 LRHS scopes in the field and building an opinion.
About 12-15 inches (or more) drop at 400 depending on cartridge. Enough that if you don’t account for it you have a rodeo on your hands.
And somewhere between 350-400 yards is when I think most, even most here, probably have no business shooting. Just wind at that range starts doing funny things.
Certainly more than 1 system that could account for it. I don’t like dialing because it takes my eyes and attention off the animal, and what’s happening around it, like a cow that moves behind him. Doesn’t bother others. Again, fine with me whatever system you use.
Are you saying you cannot hold over 12” on an elk? By that I mean hold the crosshairs 12” above where you want the bullet to impact?
Whi buys a long range scope to hunt with on its lowest power? Maters not if I'm hunting with a FFP or SFP scope I never set it on the lowest power, not even in the woods.
This is a good point.
Lets say you are using something in the 5-25X or more range and rarely if ever dial below 10X then FFP makes a lot of sense.
Many FFP reticles are optimized for 15-18X on those types of optics and using 25X or more, in real hunting, is somewhat rare (mirage, FOV).
If I had to hunt with an optic that topped out over 20X and it had to be a factory reticle I might pick FFP and give up on the bottom end of the zoom range.
I use optics that top out at 14-18X and I can always use the top end of the power band for long range or precision.
I will often carry on 1/2 max zoom and my hash marks are 2 MOA.
If I am shooting at the bottom of the zoom I won't be holding wind but might very much be holding close range elevation offsets (5 yards is a 60 MOA hold.) and the boldness of the 2FP reticle is required for real speed.
About 12-15 inches (or more) drop at 400 depending on cartridge. Enough that if you don’t account for it you have a rodeo on your hands.
And somewhere between 350-400 yards is when I think most, even most here, probably have no business shooting. Just wind at that range starts doing funny things.
Certainly more than 1 system that could account for it. I don’t like dialing because it takes my eyes and attention off the animal, and what’s happening around it, like a cow that moves behind him. Doesn’t bother others. Again, fine with me whatever system you use.
Are you saying you cannot hold over 12” on an elk? By that I mean hold the crosshairs 12” above where you want the bullet to impact?
Love hate with spring in Wyoming. Damn in can be [bleep], or super nice. Will lull ya a tho, cuz 25knots of wind and 30 is freezing ass cold on the stabbing board if all ya got on is some long johns and coveralls and you can’t get surface pipe in the hole. Wind straight up the v door, shaking like a [bleep] at a wrong roast, hardhat yardsaled somewhere back by the pits.
Every time I’ve been on a rig floor in that neck of the woods the drill pipe stood back sounds like a giant pipe organ.Effin a it gets windy there. One time from the junction on 20 to Douglas I couldn’t get off 3rd gear it was so dam windy.
I can’t speak for Douglas today but it was damned beautiful in Cheyenne. Last week was 5 and the wind was whipping!
About 12-15 inches (or more) drop at 400 depending on cartridge. Enough that if you don’t account for it you have a rodeo on your hands.
And somewhere between 350-400 yards is when I think most, even most here, probably have no business shooting. Just wind at that range starts doing funny things.
Certainly more than 1 system that could account for it. I don’t like dialing because it takes my eyes and attention off the animal, and what’s happening around it, like a cow that moves behind him. Doesn’t bother others. Again, fine with me whatever system you use.
Are you saying you cannot hold over 12” on an elk? By that I mean hold the crosshairs 12” above where you want the bullet to impact?
If you are thinking in inches of drop then reticle selection is a moot point.
About 12-15 inches (or more) drop at 400 depending on cartridge. Enough that if you don’t account for it you have a rodeo on your hands.
And somewhere between 350-400 yards is when I think most, even most here, probably have no business shooting. Just wind at that range starts doing funny things.
Certainly more than 1 system that could account for it. I don’t like dialing because it takes my eyes and attention off the animal, and what’s happening around it, like a cow that moves behind him. Doesn’t bother others. Again, fine with me whatever system you use.
Are you saying you cannot hold over 12” on an elk? By that I mean hold the crosshairs 12” above where you want the bullet to impact?
Who said “can’t” anywhere?
You said “don’t” and explained a scenario where a shooter not accounting for that much drop (12-15”)would just wound the animal .i agree with that. . Not trying to start an argument. And nobody “holds over” I guess. It’s not cool. Haha . For a fast shot scenario, I’d think to be successful and pull off a shot in 6 seconds that would be most feasible. I was really addressing Cum cowboy as he says in your scenario he’d, range, dial, and shoot a 400 yard shot in 6 seconds. Also, he claims to be a experienced “Western “ hunter.
About 12-15 inches (or more) drop at 400 depending on cartridge. Enough that if you don’t account for it you have a rodeo on your hands.
And somewhere between 350-400 yards is when I think most, even most here, probably have no business shooting. Just wind at that range starts doing funny things.
Certainly more than 1 system that could account for it. I don’t like dialing because it takes my eyes and attention off the animal, and what’s happening around it, like a cow that moves behind him. Doesn’t bother others. Again, fine with me whatever system you use.
Are you saying you cannot hold over 12” on an elk? By that I mean hold the crosshairs 12” above where you want the bullet to impact?
If you are thinking in inches of drop then reticle selection is a moot point.
You are still hunting through a large patch of dark timber. Bull tag in hand.
You look to a meadow just ahead of you coming out of the timber. Nothing. Nothing. Take another step and there’s a good bull 15 yards from more timber, he’s moving towards the timber slowly. You look at him for a second to make sure he is in fact a good bull.
Your buddy who is [bleep] money tells you the bull is 400 yards away. There’s a little wind. How much wind? You shoot a lot, and you think maybe 4-5 inches of drift. You don’t have more than probably 6 seconds, maybe less, to do anything. There’s conveniently a tree handy for a quick and stable rest.
What could you do? A challenging scenario no matter the equipment.
One of those things could be to watch that bull move into the timber and never see him again. I’m not saying that’s a poor choice. I certainly [bleep] hate to be hurried into quick shots. My brain gets overloaded.
One of those things is to put a 1 Mil dot on him and consider taking a shot. Because you have a 7 Mag and you sighted in 2 inches high at 100 yards and that 1 Mil dot just lined up with the 400 yard gong perfect. Maybe your scope is set to 4x or 6x because that’s what the thing is always set on.
One of those things is you could [bleep] around with your dials and magnification and miss watching the bull walking into the timber.
Maybe you’re quick enough to dial or hold with SFP. Fine with me! I like that dot at 400. And I know that I have no problem shooting an animal at 400 yards with a scope on 6x.
Me, I’m either going to take the shot or watch that bull walk into the timber through the scope.
What I would probably do is what I did for the first 40 years of my hunting life. I would take my 7mag topped with a 3-10x Leupold w/regular duplex and 160 partitions, sighted in at 3" high at 100, and aim just below the top of his back. I probably killed near 200 head of big game with this type of setup and it seems to work well. If the wind is blowing too hard for me to be comfortable I won't shoot. All that being said, nowadays I'd feel more confident using the LRHS and dial, hold for wind.
Well, maybe you guys can help me figure out what the fuss is all about, grabbed my 6.5x55 and fired two 147gr ELD's with my LRTS into about a quarter inch at 100 on 3X at sundown, then put four rounds into 9 inches at 900 yards on 12X.
I shouldn't have fired that fourth shot, wind got me and opened it up a bit, I cant seem to find a problem hunting/shooting with either FFP or SFP.
Well, maybe you guys can help me figure out what the fuss is all about, grabbed my 6.5x55 and fired two 147gr ELD's with my LRTS into about a quarter inch at 100 on 3X at sundown, then put four rounds into 9 inches at 900 yards on 12X.
I shouldn't have fired that fourth shot, wind got me and opened it up a bit, I cant seem to find a problem hunting/shooting with either FFP or SFP.
I agree gunner. It's kind of like when I played pro baseball and went from aluminum bats in college to using wood. If you can hit, you can hit, period. It ain't the bat's fault.
Well, maybe you guys can help me figure out what the fuss is all about, grabbed my 6.5x55 and fired two 147gr ELD's with my LRTS into about a quarter inch at 100 on 3X at sundown, then put four rounds into 9 inches at 900 yards on 12X.
I shouldn't have fired that fourth shot, wind got me and opened it up a bit, I cant seem to find a problem hunting/shooting with either FFP or SFP.
I agree gunner. It's kind of like when I played pro baseball and went from aluminum bats in college to using wood. If you can hit, you can hit, period. It ain't the bat's fault.
LOL, were I in a "anything [range] can happen" hunting situation, I'd simply dial dead on at 300 yards, point and shoot, I certainly wont be shooting any game further than that at dusk, I had Wife send some pics to beretzs, maybe he can post em up tonight or tomorrow.
I've made that exact shot, & even a little longer more than once & you surely don't need to dial at 400 yards unless you have a 50 yd zero with a 45-70.
My 270/280's @ 2950 fps, with 150 gr spitzers zeroed at 275-300 yds is 10-11 inches low @400 yrds, depending on exact bullet, altitude, conditions, etc.
Wind at target is a guestimate anytime.............
But 6 seconds is likely not enough time to to realistically get set up to take that shot though & I've had a little more time to get set, stick a knife into a tree with a glove on it or get prone over a pack, & take the shot.
Bullet on the right was taken from an elk killed as described above, killed deer at similar range, no recovered bullet.
And under that or any similar circumstance, whether you were using a FFP or SFP scope would not be a factor, IMO............I own both, they both work depending on use & preference.
Cummins’ doesn’t do anything besides sit on the couch or “test” scopes at the park and creep out kids, so I’m not sure why anyone is entertaining this.
To stay on subject, I’ve killed elk and deer with SFP and FFP. Prefer FFP, but that’s me and I couldn’t GAF what anyone else uses.
I’ve asked many times before, but refresh my memory. How many times have you hunted with a FFP scope? How did that scope being FFP fail you? Did it actually cost you an animal? What scope was it? What reticle did it have in it?
LOL, that pretty much says it all Big Buddy, either or, easy as pie, another reason I was never able to figure out the "reason why" for threads like these, BTW, I swear I came off that mountain with headlights on ATV, guess my little flip phone has a built in flash, think I can see some of it on the tape measure.
Speaking of flash, now there's a legitimate concern with shooting at dusk/sundown, trying to stay clear/focused looking through ANY scope with that light bulb in your eyes from the previous shot has always been a challenge for me.
CC: That sure looks like a "Gold Ring" on that scope (Leupold?) the Coyote Hunter was shooting to kill that Coyote at 1,018 (one thousand and eighteen!) yards! How can that possibly be (directed at the very few Leupold naysayers on this site!)? Long live Leupold & Stevens - a fine American Company. Hold into the wind VarmintGuy
It takes longer to range than to turn the dial.. and most truly long range shots aren't rushed, you need to set up before you just lob bullets at an innocent animal. Citing "speed" as a reason to run FFP is fine in a PRS match.
I laughed when I saw this thread. Still applies just as much. Yo Jordan how is John making those shots? Is he lying about second focal plane and he is really using ffp just so he can sell his scopes? Those sfp look pretty good to me. Getting it done on Wyoming public lands on real animals
I laughed when I saw this thread. Still applies just as much. Yo Jordan how is John making those shots? Is he lying about second focal plane and he is really using ffp just so he can sell his scopes? Those sfp look pretty good to me. Getting it done on Wyoming public lands on real animals
It takes longer to range than to turn the dial.. and most truly long range shots aren't rushed, you need to set up before you just lob bullets at an innocent animal. Citing "speed" as a reason to run FFP is fine in a PRS match.
While I agree that on an unwounded animal you need to make sure to set up properly to ensure a good hit, it’s rare for there to be no time pressure at all. Even at long range, when a good opportunity presents itself, the clock is ticking. At lease IME.
On a wounded critter, time is of the essence, and speed of making follow-up hits certainly does matter.
To your point, the reason that PRS stages are timed events is that they are supposed to simulate practical shooting scenarios in the field.
As is the case with any other piece of gear, every design decision always involves accepting tradeoffs. There's a place for both SFP and FFP and valid arguments for both. One thing that is often cited as a FFP disadvantage is the old "reticle is worthless at low power" anecdote. Sometimes that's true, but not always. It depends entirely on the design of the reticle in question and the zoom ratio of the optic in question. I have several FFP scopes with reticles that I promise you are just as visible at 3X as any SFP hunting duplex reticle, even with illumination off, but certainly more so with illumination on. It all depends on how thick features like the outer bars on the reticle are, how far these bars extend toward the reticle's center, and other reticle features expressly designed to work at both extreme ends of the zoom range. At the same time, these same reticles have thin enough inner bars for extremely precise aiming at the highest magnification. Again, its all a matter of good design.
Another advantage to FFP that is almost never discussed is the fact that it is far more likely to maintain POI when magnification is changed. The reason for this is because in a SFP scope, the reticle is located at the front of the zoom tube & erector, and can be shifted off center with power changes by sliding parts adjacent to it. The higher the magnification selected, the more offset error comes into play if everything isn't perfectly aligned and centered. It requires much tighter mating tolerances of parts to prevent zero shift in a SFP scope. This isn't an issue in most well-designed, quality scopes, but it is possible nonetheless. It isn't possible at all in a FFP scope because the reticle in a FFP scope is located on the objective lens group side of the erector assy, independent of the zoom assy. The target image and the reticle are in the same optical plane, always locked together. In short, a SFP scope may shift POI some with power change, but a FFP scope mechanically cannot, at least not from this cause.
I have read info offered by cc and burns. I also read info by huntsman, atse and scenarshooter. The result was my purchasing a SS 3-9 HD w/ MQ reticle and learning how easy it is to learn a new and better way to improve my shooting,and as a result my hunting.
I killed stuff for a long time w/ irons and sfp scopes but enjoy learning new stuff.
My friends girl friend was with us today. She had only shot a rifle twice before in her life. I had steel set up at 350 yds , 500 yds, and 620 yds. The first 2 were 12" x 12" the one at 620 was 12" x 18". After a tutorial on proper form, and technique, and a couple of dry firings,I turned her loose. The scope was on 7x and she had 3 centered hits at 350. Next was 500 yds, and I set the scope on 10x. She shot 3 more times,with 3 centered hits on the steel. One bullet left.I left the scope on 10x,made the elevation corrections on the turret, and watched her center punch the 620 yd steel. The point of this is how easy this can be with proper technique, and decent equipment. She couldn't believe she could hit targets at that distance. It was pretty cool to watch.. She was shooting my fast twist 243 with a 3x15 SS scope.
So, you're happy with what you ended up with after you disregarded the advice of CC and Burns?
After using a lot of different SFP and FFP through the years, my two favorite all around hunting scopes are the SWFA 3-9 and the Bushie LRHS. Both reticles are superb and are usable throughout their entire X range. Overall, I like well done FFP offerings as they allow the use of the lowest possible X for the shot, which I find to be a big advantage for myriad reasons. Also, l find a reticle that stays the same size to be much simpler and, by extension, less prone to misapplication in times of stress than remembering different subtensions for different X's.
I'm also fond of the 1-6 SWFA. At 1.5x it's like a large aperture peep; at 6x you get the full Milquad. And you get 10 mil per rev on a turret you can run capped or exposed depending on how you plan to use it.
Use whatever you desire, it personall preference. The big deal is we are in the age of mil/mil moa/moa type optics unlike some years ago when optics had a mil reticle and 1/4moa adjustment. Now that was stupid and highly confusing and optics makers sold those goods to us (Leupold and others). Why?
If you like SFP thats great but its simply not true that the current crop of FFP reticles are difficult or too small to see on lower power. Not anymore with some of todays smart reticles. Illumination helps but many reticles today use those "death donoghts" and some have a chevron aiming point in that 3/4 circle. No longer are there shortcomings with some of these new smart designed reticles and the chevron allow for a literal precise aiming point whether on higher or lower power.
Today its not enough to claim FFP has these shorcomings , but SFP is fine if you are used to it. I have and use both but the FFP scopes are an advantage as theyre easier and faster to employ. But this is subjective and is mostly a product of experiance and use. But im thankful for the great FFP optics now available.
[quote=beretzs]Use what works for you. A lot of folks do pretty well with both of them.
I also don't have to worry about the reticle covering up my 2" target set at 400 yards out.
Not only the reticle is magnified,but also the target.If the reticle is larger than the target at its lowest power setting it would have problems,but really, are your worried about a 2" target at any hunting yardage?Personally I use a 2nd focal plane scope for hunting and a first for long distance target shooting.Just what I do,neither right or wrong.
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.
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.
As is the case with any other piece of gear, every design decision always involves accepting tradeoffs. There's a place for both SFP and FFP and valid arguments for both. One thing that is often cited as a FFP disadvantage is the old "reticle is worthless at low power" anecdote. Sometimes that's true, but not always. It depends entirely on the design of the reticle in question and the zoom ratio of the optic in question. I have several FFP scopes with reticles that I promise you are just as visible at 3X as any SFP hunting duplex reticle, even with illumination off, but certainly more so with illumination on. It all depends on how thick features like the outer bars on the reticle are, how far these bars extend toward the reticle's center, and other reticle features expressly designed to work at both extreme ends of the zoom range. At the same time, these same reticles have thin enough inner bars for extremely precise aiming at the highest magnification. Again, its all a matter of good design.
Another advantage to FFP that is almost never discussed is the fact that it is far more likely to maintain POI when magnification is changed. The reason for this is because in a SFP scope, the reticle is located at the front of the zoom tube & erector, and can be shifted off center with power changes by sliding parts adjacent to it. The higher the magnification selected, the more offset error comes into play if everything isn't perfectly aligned and centered. It requires much tighter mating tolerances of parts to prevent zero shift in a SFP scope. This isn't an issue in most well-designed, quality scopes, but it is possible nonetheless. It isn't possible at all in a FFP scope because the reticle in a FFP scope is located on the objective lens group side of the erector assy, independent of the zoom assy. The target image and the reticle are in the same optical plane, always locked together. In short, a SFP scope may shift POI some with power change, but a FFP scope mechanically cannot, at least not from this cause.
I have also heard the poi shift with power change on a sfp scope. While I can understand it being possible. I check that when i static test my scopes and have never seen it happen, while checking it. If it did there is no way it’s enough to come close to mattering. Of course scope age, wear and tear, recoil. All that stuff comes into play.
Colony varmint season is coming. Maybe I might wish I had a ffp scope on my rigs. I will pay attention to see how much better I think it might be if I did. I don’t use too high powered of a scope generally. So maybe I will not care.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/im1xmEH.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i723.photobucket.com]](https://s723.photobucket.com/user/beretzs/media/RIFLES/M70%20Featherweight%20Swede/100%20yards%203X_zpsnsqjw1oz.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image from i723.photobucket.com]](https://s723.photobucket.com/user/beretzs/media/RIFLES/M70%20Featherweight%20Swede/900%20yards%2012X_zpsdmg0riwh.jpg.html)
here's a perfect example.