FFP vs SFP

Yes and no. Depends on what you are going to use it for.....hunting, long range target, variable long and short ranges. Seems to me you are going long range given the 6-25x choice. That being said you would be fine going SFP with MOA reticle and turrets.
 
I would say go SFP. I have that scope in SFP and am quite happy with it. I had a FFP and found on low mag the cross hairs were very fine, very hard to see on a dark background. And the cross hairs were quite coarse at high mag. With the SFP the cross hairs stay the same no matter what.

When ranging with the SFP you have to be at max mag which I usually always use anyway to get the most accurate MIL reading I can get. Also I would suggest going MIL vs MOA. I find the math just plain easier to do. Unfortunately for me I am pretty good at estimating range in yards by eye but it's a easy conversion to get yards to meters at least get you close. You see something you estimate to be say 100 yards, just reduce that by 10%, so 90 meters.
 
I had the same dilemma not long ago. Went with SFP and here's why.
I almost always shoot at known distances, so I don't need the reticle for range estimations at any given magnification.
I target shoot at the range, so I wanted thinner crosshairs when at full magnification.
And I went with the MOA adjustments because I wanted finer click values to fine tune my point of impact to the bullseye better.

If you plan on shooting silhouettes at a 1000 or anywhere in between FFP and MIL would be best, but for most sport shooting situations I feel the SFP and MOA adjustments is where it's at.
 
Last edited:
Yes and Yes. One dot in the scope is always 0.5 mills (5 clicks on your adjustment).Does not matter how far are you and what the magnification is.
It makes it very easy and fast adjustment.
But if you just want deer hunting glass for your 300 SWM, which is flat to 300 yards, don't spend the $$$.
 
GRiNGo said:
Ya, seems pretty split. My only problem is I mail order so don't always get to look through first.

Thanks again.
Click to expand...

The only advantage the FFP against the SFP is when ranging target at all magnification.

with, a little math, you can do the same at with SFP at some magnifications that is easy to do math.

and the FFP disadvantage is that if the reticle size will increase its size very big when you change the magnification to high power and it may cover the whole target,not the sfp.
 
jackdanyel said:
The only advantage the FFP against the SFP is when ranging target at all magnification.

with, a little math, you can do the same at with SFP at some magnifications that is easy to do math.

and the FFP disadvantage is that if the reticle size will increase its size very big when you change the magnification to high power and it may cover the whole target,not the sfp.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The size of the reticle in relation to magnification remains constant with a ffp reticle, hence the ability to rangefind and use holdovers at all powers. The reticle cannot and will not cover up the target.

Tdc
 
TDC said:
Wrong. The size of the reticle in relation to magnification remains constant with a ffp reticle, hence the ability to rangefind and use holdovers at all powers. The reticle cannot and will not cover up the target.

Tdc
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong , they don't cover big target, but small one at high magnification, can be really a pain to see.
 
jackdanyel said:
Nothing wrong , they don't cover big target, but small one at high magnification, can be really a pain to see.
Click to expand...

You'd need to be shooting at a pretty damn small target ... A lot of today's FFP scopes have a very fine aim point , around .05mil .. Which works out to be around just 1.8" target coverage at 1000....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom