the 8-80 is a second focal plane scope .. March makes a few "Tactical" FFP scopes ... and they have recently announced a SFP scope that apparently doesnt shift POI when powers are changed. I dont yet know how this is designed and would like to have a look at its guts. -- however most March are SFP. BUT traditionally, as I said before, the FFP have an advantage holding poi when changing powers because of their internal design compared to how sfp scopes are designed and achieve changes in power. That "may" be useful to some long range target shooters who like to change power - and maybe for a tactical shooter IDK but I think I would rather lase or have a spotter call the range rather than screw about with the power knob to calculate a solution then dial it in - . But for any one that can maintain a fixed power throughout a match they are BETTER off (assuming of course that the tolerances required of a variable dont effect shot to shot poi). ALL variable powers add one more challenge in maintaining the poi through a match. And at the level of competition that exists today -- it is one that some folks are not keen to risk.
Am I the only one? FFP vs SFP
- Thread starter cr5
- Start date
Well aware that its SFP. I have one of the March 3-24x42 FFP and my shooting partner has several of the 5-40x56 FFP. He is usually using it under 25x...
PRS often doesn't allow a spotter, you spot your own shots.
PRS often doesn't allow a spotter, you spot your own shots.
Last edited:
sorry I was trying to understand why you were extolling the virtues of FFP scopes and then pointing out your best friends rather laudable success in F class with a SFP ??? I must have missed your point ... here.
Originally Posted by Mystic Precision
Watch the very many vids on precision rifle shooting all over the US. You see a bunch of SFP scopes used.
If you go to an F-Class match, you see 6s and 6.5s being used in F-Open. But, how many of them do you see consistently up at the top in big matches? Should we just chalk it up to coincidence? There is no advantage to 7mm or 30 cal. It's just a coincidence that the top shooters prefer them... just a preference? Not likely. In PRS, not a single one of those SFP shooters made it to the PRS Finale. Not one. In big matches like the SHC that have a lot of dynamic shooting, few if any of them make it into the top quarter. And you probably have more SFP scope there than FFP ones. Novices usually shot up with NXS or Mark 4s because the guy at the gun shop who has never shot the matches told them to buy SFP because the "reticle doesn't change size".
Originally Posted by K0na_stinky
Oh well, sfp seems to work and maybe the trend will drop the price of sfp even more.
We have been much slower to adopt FFP up here because of the limitations of our ranges. Understandable. If all you have is a small low definition CTR television, you won't see the advantage of using Blue-Ray over your VHS cassette. But, once you see the difference on a big HD screen, the VHS cassette loses it's shine very quickly. And just because you don't have an HD TV doesn't mean that your VHS cassette is any less obsolete. The military will continue to switch to FFP, as will US tactical shooters as PRS grows in popularity. Those are the two primary users driving the market demand for tactical scopes. You will see fewer and fewer new SFP tactical offerings because the SFP tactical scope are also not desirable to known distance target shooters because of the reticle thickness and magnification range. You will likely get some good deals on inventory clear outs, but I wouldn't count on prices dropping due to any kind of production volume increase. It's going the other way. If anything, the price of FFP scopes will continue to drop as it has been lately with many of the new offerings.
The point was magnification... new shooters always think tons of magnification is going to help them when it more often than not hinders them due to conditions (even in known distance shooting). I was answering Scott_r's question (post #38) about magnification and F-Class when I mentioned the 8-80x.
I often revert to PRS type shooting because it's the type of long range shooting I learned on. I never shot a known/single distance match before moving back to Canada in 2010. My first impression of it was that it was some kind of sighting-in exercise (walkback) before the real match for shooters to be able to adjust for altitude change... Anyway, in those matches, you're often not allowed to use a laser range finder, and even if you are, it would cost you more points than it would gain you due the time it takes to switch between the rifle and the rage finder. Trying to set a magnification dial to a specific values costs you too much time, as does putting on wind on the turret. Most dial for elevation, hold off for wind and adjust the magnification to the FOV they need while looking through the scope.
I often revert to PRS type shooting because it's the type of long range shooting I learned on. I never shot a known/single distance match before moving back to Canada in 2010. My first impression of it was that it was some kind of sighting-in exercise (walkback) before the real match for shooters to be able to adjust for altitude change... Anyway, in those matches, you're often not allowed to use a laser range finder, and even if you are, it would cost you more points than it would gain you due the time it takes to switch between the rifle and the rage finder. Trying to set a magnification dial to a specific values costs you too much time, as does putting on wind on the turret. Most dial for elevation, hold off for wind and adjust the magnification to the FOV they need while looking through the scope.
Last edited:
Mystic Precision
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Summerland, BC
As I said, I have both..... both have their place and fans. I think the top shooters in any sport have resources well beyond 1 item on their rifle.
Was watching a top shooter and how fast he could cycle the gun. It was not far off a semi. Then how he kept in position, minimal movement.... fluid, and fast. THAT is what puts bullets on target and wins matches.
Being totally winded after moving from one platform to another isn't going to help your scores either. What appeals to me about PRS is there is so much more to the sport then just the rifle. The skills cover all aspects of riflery and that is cool.
It is the package you bring to that match including physical and mental preparation. A good rifle is a must but there seems to be alot of stuff being used.
As for fussing with mag on a scope, rarely ever do and I rarely even go past 35X.. there is on point even at 1000yds. There is more to see then just the aiming point.
So for PRS type shooting, if you do not have time to adjust your scope, then FFP or SFP would not matter either would it? Just being a pain... I do understand the reasons why it is vastly more popular but the time to engage applies to all shooters regardless of the scope on their rifle. Turning a mag ring a little or alot makes very little difference in overall time.... if you have time, you have time. If you dont, you don't.
My understanding of PRS is you may get the course of fire info when you reach that stage BUT you will get a course of fire at some point before shooting (????). I only ever saw a stage where the shooter was told which target to engage as each was shot BUT all targets were presented so the shooter had a general idea of what was going on.
An event with obstacles to negotiate and various targets to shoot from each location... I doubt they just yell at that shooter as they jump around. I see a fair amount of preplanning in these videos. Shooters have their various gear out ready to best use for the stage. They may not know much before they start BUT they know when they start. Some matches provide course of fire before the match.... maybe not the norm but it's done too.
Me thinks you would be remiss to not have an idea of your scope zero and mag setting before ANY stage. And if you refilled your mags (saw a few oops there too)
Do they not tell you what size the targets are before you start? Otherwise, how could you range with your scope if you do not have time to use a rangefinder?
Why a bolt instead of a semi?
Why not 12 rds mags instead of 10? Why not 20rds? I have not seen any mag limits in US rules.
Why not scopes with built in rangefinders? Eventually, why not scopes that provide a complete firing solution (no not track point)?
I can only discuss PRS as a spectator. hopefully, get some first hand experience in the seasons to come. Then ideas change but for now, I see fitness, preparedness, a properly functioning rifle, and an operator that knows their gear and how to shoot being core ingredients to a good result.
Jerry
Was watching a top shooter and how fast he could cycle the gun. It was not far off a semi. Then how he kept in position, minimal movement.... fluid, and fast. THAT is what puts bullets on target and wins matches.
Being totally winded after moving from one platform to another isn't going to help your scores either. What appeals to me about PRS is there is so much more to the sport then just the rifle. The skills cover all aspects of riflery and that is cool.
It is the package you bring to that match including physical and mental preparation. A good rifle is a must but there seems to be alot of stuff being used.
As for fussing with mag on a scope, rarely ever do and I rarely even go past 35X.. there is on point even at 1000yds. There is more to see then just the aiming point.
So for PRS type shooting, if you do not have time to adjust your scope, then FFP or SFP would not matter either would it? Just being a pain... I do understand the reasons why it is vastly more popular but the time to engage applies to all shooters regardless of the scope on their rifle. Turning a mag ring a little or alot makes very little difference in overall time.... if you have time, you have time. If you dont, you don't.
My understanding of PRS is you may get the course of fire info when you reach that stage BUT you will get a course of fire at some point before shooting (????). I only ever saw a stage where the shooter was told which target to engage as each was shot BUT all targets were presented so the shooter had a general idea of what was going on.
An event with obstacles to negotiate and various targets to shoot from each location... I doubt they just yell at that shooter as they jump around. I see a fair amount of preplanning in these videos. Shooters have their various gear out ready to best use for the stage. They may not know much before they start BUT they know when they start. Some matches provide course of fire before the match.... maybe not the norm but it's done too.
Me thinks you would be remiss to not have an idea of your scope zero and mag setting before ANY stage. And if you refilled your mags (saw a few oops there too)
Do they not tell you what size the targets are before you start? Otherwise, how could you range with your scope if you do not have time to use a rangefinder?
Why a bolt instead of a semi?
Why not 12 rds mags instead of 10? Why not 20rds? I have not seen any mag limits in US rules.
Why not scopes with built in rangefinders? Eventually, why not scopes that provide a complete firing solution (no not track point)?
I can only discuss PRS as a spectator. hopefully, get some first hand experience in the seasons to come. Then ideas change but for now, I see fitness, preparedness, a properly functioning rifle, and an operator that knows their gear and how to shoot being core ingredients to a good result.
Jerry
In Service Rifle, in the CAFSAC course of fire, there are a few kneeling mover stages. There are only a few, but if you bomb them, you're finished. Forget about winning, you won't be anywhere near the top. There are tons of prone stages, but no one mentions them. Not one mentions them because those that have shot the match know that those are give-me points. They don't decide the match. Yet people who have never shot the match think they will show up with a heavy barrels varmint rifle and a super high power scope and they will ace the match because it's so accurate in prone shooting. They end up bombing the kneeling and standing stages because the rifle is too muzzle heavy and cross firing because the magnification is too high. I've seen some of the best SR shooters out there do poorly trying to shoot a long heavy barreled rifle in a match. Its equipment that may do well in prone stages, but not in standing ones. And while standing may not make up the majority of the shots, doing poorly will tank you. US tactical matches are no different. The odd stuff I mention doesn't make up the entire match. But, it's the odd stuff that usually decides the winner and that stuff is often easier to deal with with FFP.
Some people do use AR-10's. The way the matches are designed, if there is a stage where something gives a disproportionate advantage, there will be stage where it's a liability. A big heavy barrel may be an advantage on a stage with long ranges and tiny targets, but the next stage may be standing shots. A light barrel factory rifle may do better in the standing, but not as well on those longer distance targets. The AR may do great in fast stages, but fail when it gets dirt while the boltgun keeps chugging along.
Don't dwell on trying to find a course of fire. The philosophy down there is different than here. They emphasize knowing the material and being able to apply it in different situations vs. learning how to deal with one specific situation mechanically. Take a course or a clinic on movers here and they will tell you: "at 100 yards, aim at this ring, at 200 yards aim at this ring... at 400 yards aim this many inches in front of the target". Completely useless when the target is at a different speed or distance. In the US, they will show you what I posted earlier, which can be applied broadly.
Good match directors will do things to test the shooter. To see if their techniques are robust and work in real situations under stress. To see if the shooter really understands a principal or if they are only applying it mechanically. Some examples I've seen:
The match director put a scaled down IPSC target in a valley that narrowed. It gave it a long hallway effect and made the target appear further than it really was. He did this after people shot several stages with full size IPSC targets. He didn't say anything about the size of the target. People assumed it was a full size target. So, everyone missed their first shot. FFP shooters just corrected with the reticle as they normally would. Many (not all) of the SFP shooters tried to estimate the size of their miss based on how big they thought the target was, do math, and dial in the corrections. Miss, miss, miss... They could have used their reticle. You can correct a miss at any power with an SFP scope using the reticle. You won't know what the correction is to be able to update your charts afterwards, but you can correct the miss. But, some people were so programmed to correct a miss in a way that can easily fail in the field that they just kept doing it. Most caught on, and used the reticle. But, there were apparently a few shooters who were ready to quit the match because they thought they had a broken scope. Trying to estimate the size of a miss in inches and doing math to figure out a corrections is a poor technique that can fail in a number of ways, yet it is often reinforced in known distance shooting and even taught in courses...
Stage with a tower. MD tells shooters: "the target is X from the base of the tower". If you understand the rifleman's rule, you know that you are using your cosine indicator to convert the slant distance to the horizontal distance. He just gave you the horizontal distance. No need to use the cosine indicator at all. It was a short distance and the angle wasn't too steep, so the basic rifleman's rule was applicable (modifications need to be made to it for long distances and steep angles) so you can just use it directly. But, what did a bunch of people do? Multiply the horizontal distance by the value on their cosine indicator. MISS! They were applying the principal mechanically. They didn't really understand it.
MD has a mover out in the field going at an angle. Tells people the speed it is moving forward. People look up the lead for that speed and miss the first shot by a bunch (two shots only allowed, worth a lot of points). They failed to realize that the horizontal component of the speed was smaller due to the angle. There was even a diagram posted that showed the angle of the target. It was something they were ignorant of. Maybe they taught themselves, maybe they took a course and the instructor didn't teach it or was unaware.
US matches have to be challenging. They have to have things that can potentially trip up even the most experienced shooters. Many of the guys shooting are instructors from places like Rifles Only or K&M, who teach this stuff to special forces from all over the world and know it inside and out. They would get bored with a simple course of fire, and if they stopped going.
Some people do use AR-10's. The way the matches are designed, if there is a stage where something gives a disproportionate advantage, there will be stage where it's a liability. A big heavy barrel may be an advantage on a stage with long ranges and tiny targets, but the next stage may be standing shots. A light barrel factory rifle may do better in the standing, but not as well on those longer distance targets. The AR may do great in fast stages, but fail when it gets dirt while the boltgun keeps chugging along.
Don't dwell on trying to find a course of fire. The philosophy down there is different than here. They emphasize knowing the material and being able to apply it in different situations vs. learning how to deal with one specific situation mechanically. Take a course or a clinic on movers here and they will tell you: "at 100 yards, aim at this ring, at 200 yards aim at this ring... at 400 yards aim this many inches in front of the target". Completely useless when the target is at a different speed or distance. In the US, they will show you what I posted earlier, which can be applied broadly.
Good match directors will do things to test the shooter. To see if their techniques are robust and work in real situations under stress. To see if the shooter really understands a principal or if they are only applying it mechanically. Some examples I've seen:
The match director put a scaled down IPSC target in a valley that narrowed. It gave it a long hallway effect and made the target appear further than it really was. He did this after people shot several stages with full size IPSC targets. He didn't say anything about the size of the target. People assumed it was a full size target. So, everyone missed their first shot. FFP shooters just corrected with the reticle as they normally would. Many (not all) of the SFP shooters tried to estimate the size of their miss based on how big they thought the target was, do math, and dial in the corrections. Miss, miss, miss... They could have used their reticle. You can correct a miss at any power with an SFP scope using the reticle. You won't know what the correction is to be able to update your charts afterwards, but you can correct the miss. But, some people were so programmed to correct a miss in a way that can easily fail in the field that they just kept doing it. Most caught on, and used the reticle. But, there were apparently a few shooters who were ready to quit the match because they thought they had a broken scope. Trying to estimate the size of a miss in inches and doing math to figure out a corrections is a poor technique that can fail in a number of ways, yet it is often reinforced in known distance shooting and even taught in courses...
Stage with a tower. MD tells shooters: "the target is X from the base of the tower". If you understand the rifleman's rule, you know that you are using your cosine indicator to convert the slant distance to the horizontal distance. He just gave you the horizontal distance. No need to use the cosine indicator at all. It was a short distance and the angle wasn't too steep, so the basic rifleman's rule was applicable (modifications need to be made to it for long distances and steep angles) so you can just use it directly. But, what did a bunch of people do? Multiply the horizontal distance by the value on their cosine indicator. MISS! They were applying the principal mechanically. They didn't really understand it.
MD has a mover out in the field going at an angle. Tells people the speed it is moving forward. People look up the lead for that speed and miss the first shot by a bunch (two shots only allowed, worth a lot of points). They failed to realize that the horizontal component of the speed was smaller due to the angle. There was even a diagram posted that showed the angle of the target. It was something they were ignorant of. Maybe they taught themselves, maybe they took a course and the instructor didn't teach it or was unaware.
US matches have to be challenging. They have to have things that can potentially trip up even the most experienced shooters. Many of the guys shooting are instructors from places like Rifles Only or K&M, who teach this stuff to special forces from all over the world and know it inside and out. They would get bored with a simple course of fire, and if they stopped going.
Mystic Precision
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Summerland, BC
AND THIS is why I want to shoot these matches....
Riflery at its best. Know your craft, adapt to the stage, deal with the changes.... Grab the points you know for sure. Minimize the loses when you don't.
Gear alone will not win the match.
Good stuff indeed.
Jerry
Riflery at its best. Know your craft, adapt to the stage, deal with the changes.... Grab the points you know for sure. Minimize the loses when you don't.
Gear alone will not win the match.
Good stuff indeed.
Jerry
Also, don't assume that to win, every shot has to be a hit or that you can even take every shot in the stage. If you're given unknown sized targets at unknown distances, you HAVE to miss shots. You have no other choice. You need to make your best estimate, take a shot and correct by watching the swirl and the splash. That IS the correct answer to the problem.
You usually have the option to skip targets in a stage and get zero for them. Not uncommon for a match director to put a shot in the stage that is impossible to take. The answer is to skip it. But, some people will burn up a big chunk of their time trying to figure out how to get an angle on it.
You usually have the option to skip targets in a stage and get zero for them. Not uncommon for a match director to put a shot in the stage that is impossible to take. The answer is to skip it. But, some people will burn up a big chunk of their time trying to figure out how to get an angle on it.
Wow! Thank you to everyone for your responses, I'm very impressed with both the quality of the information shared and that it hasn't turned into a p!ss!ng match with a bunch of ignorant squabbling.
I have a lot to think about before my next scope purchase.
I have a lot to think about before my next scope purchase.
Yeah. Unfortunately, they don't have all of the stuff taught in the courses online and I think he breezes over a lot of stuff on his online videos. A lot of people won't really understand the mil leads the way they are only briefly mentioned.
Thought this would be a good video for this thread as well.
Here is a mover setup at a private range in Lake City Michigan (MTC). There are several matches at this range in the summer.
[youtube]6p7xeTNukSk[/youtube]
5 targets at 5 different speeds at the same time. What if they made you shoot these at four different distances? Imagine trying to lead them using linear distances (leading in inches). The leads for each mover would not only be different, it would be different at each distance. If you shot these at 4 different distances, you would need to know 20 different linear inch lead. Using an angular lead, you would have a different lead for each target, but it would be the same at each distance out to 500-600 yards depending on the cartridge you're shooting. Doesn't that seem a whole lot easier?
At the distance they're shooting at, you're not going to be able to have your scope on a high magnification. A small field of view will cripple you. You want to be able to use your reticle at a lower magnification, even more so if the targets are closer.
Here is a mover setup at a private range in Lake City Michigan (MTC). There are several matches at this range in the summer.
[youtube]6p7xeTNukSk[/youtube]
5 targets at 5 different speeds at the same time. What if they made you shoot these at four different distances? Imagine trying to lead them using linear distances (leading in inches). The leads for each mover would not only be different, it would be different at each distance. If you shot these at 4 different distances, you would need to know 20 different linear inch lead. Using an angular lead, you would have a different lead for each target, but it would be the same at each distance out to 500-600 yards depending on the cartridge you're shooting. Doesn't that seem a whole lot easier?
At the distance they're shooting at, you're not going to be able to have your scope on a high magnification. A small field of view will cripple you. You want to be able to use your reticle at a lower magnification, even more so if the targets are closer.
Last edited:
PitBull1973
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Right Behind You
Wow that's some crazy info . Thanks guys
358Rooster
CGN Regular
- Location
- Central Saskatchewan
Just my 2 cents but I've rarely found it beneficial to shoot targets less than 12" at 1000 yards at max power on most of my scopes. Maybe it's the glass, maybe it's the shooter but whether it's my Zeiss, my NF, or or my Bushnells, I find myself shooting at around 13-14x. Take this alone into account when you have something figured out for wind hold-off and you suddenly find yourself NOT on full power (as required by many SFP scopes) & your dope is out the window for future shots if you change magnification (ask me how I know).
For this simple reason (among others) I prefer FFP scopes. Everyone has their preferences and whatever suits you best is likely the way to go but don't discount the benefits of one or the other until you are in the situation which could dictate success over failure, given the discipline at hand.
Rooster
For this simple reason (among others) I prefer FFP scopes. Everyone has their preferences and whatever suits you best is likely the way to go but don't discount the benefits of one or the other until you are in the situation which could dictate success over failure, given the discipline at hand.
Rooster
I was a dyed in the wool SFP user for as long as I have been shooting which is over 40 years until last year when I tried a FFP for more than a few rounds here and there. Now while SFP is my preferred choice for the shooting I do ( F-Class and target at KD ) I can see the merits of FFP for more of the tactical type of shooting or shooting at UND. So, as someone else here mentioned, choose your game or application and then choose your tool.
Cheers
check out my blog - rifletalk.wordpress.com
Cheers
check out my blog - rifletalk.wordpress.com
Yes, but how do you know how fast a quarry is moving?
prairie lover
CGN Regular
- Location
- southern MB
I went back and forth between ffp and sfp on my last scope purchase. in the end I thought the ffp redicle when zoomed way back would be a disadvantage in low light and went with the sfp. some of them got pretty them at 6x
Seems like low magnification would mean a close target, so line diameter shouldn't really matter. My ffp is illuminated anyway.
I use a ffp and mil/mil on my yote gun, but it is a personal thing and people are different. Not sure I could voluntarily go back to sfp
I use a ffp and mil/mil on my yote gun, but it is a personal thing and people are different. Not sure I could voluntarily go back to sfp
