FFP vs SFP

[kombayotch]

Ranging is at the bottom of the list when it comes to things you'll use FFP for if you're doing any kind of real-world shooting. When someone mentions not needing to range at any magnification, they've just told everyone that they have no clue how an FFP scope is used. Most people try to use an FFP scope the same way they use an SFP scope when they try it for the first time (which is like hooking up horse to the front of a car because you're used to horse and buggy).

The FFP bashers remind me of antis; they make arguments based on information that is either blatantly wrong or generalize things base on a single example. And they continue to argue about something they have at most only handled and know nothing about.

 

[xdmer]

Yup, less guess work usable at all magnification levels and just as importantly easy on the eyes with fast acquisition.

not sure why people get hung up on ranging with the reticule being the only reason for FFP, the best and in my opinion main reason for FFP is accurate hold overs and leads @ any magnification.

 

[xdmer]

Yup, less guess work usable at all magnification levels and just as importantly easy on the eyes with fast acquisition.

not sure why people get hung up on ranging with the reticule being the only reason for FFP, the best and in my opinion main reason for FFP is accurate hold overs and leads @ any magnification.

 

[K0na_stinky]

Ranging is at the bottom of the list when it comes to things you'll use FFP for if you're doing any kind of real-world shooting. When someone mentions not needing to range at any magnification, they've just told everyone that they have no clue how an FFP scope is used. Most people try to use an FFP scope the same way they use an SFP scope when they try it for the first time (which is like hooking up horse to the front of a car because you're used to horse and buggy).

The FFP bashers remind me of antis; they make arguments based on information that is either blatantly wrong or generalize things base on a single example. And they continue to argue about something they have at most only handled and know nothing about.

In my opinion people on CGN just like to argue. It doesn’t matter if it’s FFP vs. SFP or Savage vs. Remington or plastic vs. aluminum vs. steel.

It’s honestly the downfall of this forum. Other then a few things that I can’t add cuz my post will get deleted.

People need to realize that FFP and SFP can live beside one another happily.

One is good for “x” and the other is good for “y”. That’s how life goes.

Also I don’t understand how someone could be a FFP person and another could be a SFP person. I have both and use both how I think they can help me.

 

[ivo]

The FFP bashers remind me of antis; they make arguments based on information that is either blatantly wrong or generalize things base on a single example. And they continue to argue about something they have at most only handled and know nothing about.

These same people are the ones that are stuck only knowing one way to do things. Isn't it always the SFP guys bashing FFP like they are afraid of something(maybe the unknown)" Or as Tactical Teacher would say "I can't use FFP cause my #### might fall off" FFP guys rarely, if ever, bash SFP because they understand both and just decide they prefer one way over the other. It's really not that big a deal.

 

[kombayotch]

People need to realize that FFP and SFP can live beside one another happily.

One is good for “x” and the other is good for “y”. That’s how life goes.

Also I don’t understand how someone could be a FFP person and another could be a SFP person. I have both and use both how I think they can help me.

As was stated earlier, different tools for different jobs. I wouldn't expect someone doing short range benchrest to use anything but a high magnification SPF optic with an ultrafine crosshair. It's the right tool for the job. FFP rules the roost when it comes to unknown distance shooting, under time pressure, and on dynamic targets (snaps and movers). It's the right tool for the job.

What irks many of us here is the sheer ignorance of many of these posts. Where people who don't understand even the basics of how the optics work beyond turning the dials to shift point of aim, make ludicrous statements that are blatantly wrong. Saying that the FFP reticle covers more of the target when the magnification is dialed up is akin to saying the Glock is completely made of plastic and can slip through a metal detector. It's the same level of numpty. The irony is that the reticle covering more of the target when the magnification is changed isn't a characteristic of FFP. It's a characteristic of SFP. It's right there in blacks and white in the manufacturer's specifications.

Here is a nice little analysis for people to chew on...

This is Nightforce's CTR-2 reticle:

It's a reticle they offer in their new SFP 15-55x56 Competition scope. They offer it because many people don't like the fine lines of the CTR-1 because they get lost on dark backgrounds. It has the following specification.

Highly precise reticle with .016 MOA vertical and horizontal lines and a .095 MOA center dot. Reticle subtends properly at 40x.

Their DDR-2 reticle has the same specifications for the center dot. At 40x, the reticle in that scope covers more of the aiming point than my FFP Gen2 XR reticle (0.086 MOA thick). You have to turn it up to 44x before it covers the same amount (good luck in heavy mirage!). At 22x, it covers twice as much of the aiming point as my FFP reticle, and more than any FFP reticle on the market. Yet, for some reason people are buying these scopes with these reticles for long range shooting. People are putting optics with these reticles in them on their F-Open rigs to shoot competitions at 1000 yards. Imagine that, they're using reticles that cover more of the aiming point that most of the popular FFP reticles when you dial the magnification down below 40x (which you would typically do on a hot day due to mirage). This reticle doesn't cover too much of the aiming point, but the FFP ones that are thinner do? Interesting!

Read any thread about which reticle to get in the new NF Competition, and you'll read lots about "preferences". But, no one is saying that the dot reticle won't work for long range shooting. They work very well... as do the FFP reticles that cover less of the target.

 

[Mystic Precision]

In my opinion people on CGN just like to argue. It doesn’t matter if it’s FFP vs. SFP or Savage vs. Remington or plastic vs. aluminum vs. steel.

It’s honestly the downfall of this forum. Other then a few things that I can’t add cuz my post will get deleted.

People need to realize that FFP and SFP can live beside one another happily.

One is good for “x” and the other is good for “y”. That’s how life goes.

Also I don’t understand how someone could be a FFP person and another could be a SFP person. I have both and use both how I think they can help me.

Because consumers are continually sold on the concept of BEST... no such thing.

All of this stuff are just tools and a means to an end. Not right or wrong, good or bad. Anymore so then a spoon is a better utensil then a knife

There are of course better products for any category like some knives are better then other knives but there is no one perfect knife.

It is how the sport has evolved otherwise, there would very precious little to chat about except maybe the limitations of the shooter

Jerry

 

[Tenguns]

I have both. A Nightforce 8-32X56 SFP and a Bushnell Elite 4200 3-12X44 FFP. I love the NF, but my POI at 500m changes drastically when I go from 8 power to 32 power. The Bushnell POI doesn't change but it seems to have parralax issues that drive me nuts! Not sure if it's me doing something wrong, but I can't pick a clear winner.

 

[realtrade]

These same people are the ones that are stuck only knowing one way to do things. Isn't it always the SFP guys bashing FFP like they are afraid of something(maybe the unknown)" Or as Tactical Teacher would say "I can't use FFP cause my #### might fall off" FFP guys rarely, if ever, bash SFP because they understand both and just decide they prefer one way over the other. It's really not that big a deal.

It surprises me that anyone would have a reason to bash on this subject. I use both. I think it is good to be able to use both if you shoot lots and/or enjoy shooting. Each have benefits. Considering the original question.....either option could be used. SFP would fit the purpose. Pick your poison and go shoot I say.

 

[FallenShadow80]

I use both also. Each has their own benefits. I have a Bushnell Elite Tactical 6-24x50 FFP with G2DMR Reticle. I love FFP but at full magnification, the reticle grows so much that it blocks a bit of the target. So if you're going for accuracy it's going to hinder you. It makes life easy on adjustments. To top it off, on lowest magnification, its hard to even make out the hashmarks on the reticle. It just looks like a duplex reticle. But with SFP you better know the exact magnification your scope needs to be on to make proper adjustments. But like others said. You need to figure out what the main purpose for the scope is and then decide.

 

[kombayotch]

Lots of people seem to have opinions that contradict fact when it comes to FFP reticles. Its funny how the opinions and the stories evolve when you put a manufaturers spec in front of them. Also funny that its the specs that are always off.

So, the story has evolved to using the lower thick part of the crosshair instead of the thin center that you would realistically use if you were trying to make a precision shot on a small target. Alright, lets roll with that and do some simple math: the thick part of the reticle is 0.06 mil (0.206 MOA). At 500 yards, thats about 1". 1" covers a pop can? Nope! "Opinion" still contradicts fact... still not covering a the pop can or a 1/2 MOA target.

I can't think of any FFP reticles in high magnification scopes that are that thick. There may be, but most of the really thick ones are 0.05 mil. Most of the popular ones are 0.25-0.35 mil at the part of the reticle you would actually use when making precision shots.

Heres a pic of the FFP Gen2 XR Reticle over an IPSC target:

Its a standard IPSC target. Using the milling features of the scope, it can easily be determined that its over 1000 yards away in the pic. In case you're not familiar with IPSC targets, the head is 5.9"x5.9", slightly bigger that 1/2 MOA at 1000 yards. The Gen2 XR is 0.025 mil thick, which is only a hair thinner than the 0.03 mil thick G2. I think its pretty clear (even from a fuzzy camera pic) that you could easily quarter the head at that distance. A reticle twice as thick could also easily quarter it.

I've shot the G2 at 1000 yards and had no trouble quartering a 3" indicator with it. In real life, things are a lot more crisp than they look in photos.

The myth of FFP reticles being too thick to shoot 1/2 MOA targets (a value obviously chosen because its the size of the F-Class V-bull) is just that: a myth.



EDIT:


Here is what various size FFP reticles look like over 1/2 MOA targets:



None of them completely cover a 1/2 MOA target, that's a load of bunk. The thicker ones are far from ideal, but they still don't cover a 1/2 MOA target. 0.06mil would be very rare in a high power scope, the really thick ones are typically 0.05mil. And even among those thick ones, some of them have things like apertures that mean they will never cover the aiming point. This EBR-2B, for example:

 

[TDC]

I'm going off what I actually see through my scope and what I see is the thick part of my reticle covers a pop can at 500 yards. That's where I got the 1/2 MOA. Specs. say certain things. Doesn't mean they are always perfectly true on every single scope. For all I know I got a crappy scope. But in my scope, the can hides behind the reticle. If I click up and use the middle of the crosshairs, I can see it. But I use holds and at 4.4 mils up, I'm in the thick part of the crosshairs. So forgive me for giving my opinion. I didn't know I had to be a doctor in scopology to be able to have an opinion. Maybe I should use google some more.

So the problem is your hold overs are poorly placed depending on the range and your specific zero. Sounds like its a setup issue not an optic issue. Just an FYI, using the centre of the the optic for aiming reduces the amount of distortion error as opposed to using a holdover near the bottom of the glass, I'm sure you knew that.

TDC

 

[FallenShadow80]

Nope. Still not equaling what I see in my scope. Come on, lets see you come up with a nice photoshop sketch of how my eyes work now and how the light refracts through it and the distance from the scope being the issue. Don't forget to steal some more google images. Find a nice google image with a G2DMR reticle covering a pop can just to make your point more valid. I get the math and whats supposed to be happening. It's just not happening with my scope. Therefore I have an opinion based off my FFP scope. And thats all it is. I never quoted it as fact. The guy asked for opinions and that's what he got. Didn't think peoples god complexes would go that crazy that they would resort to making images on photoshop and searching for pretty pictures to go out of their way to prove someone wrong. I get the math. It doesn't change what I see through my scope.

 

[757Fixer]

Some people when presented with facts that oppose their opinion choose to bury their heads in the sand instead of choosing to learn. I'll stick with my FFP S&B's.

 

[Mudduck]

Oh and to the people who say "the math is easier", I bet you were the people in math class who said "when are we ever going to need this sh!t in real life"

One of the best quotes in this thread IMHO


i will share why I no longer use FFP scopes -


I had both a Viper PST FFP & a Sightron FFP. I liked them but sold them and went back to SFP and here is why. I don't get to spend hours at the range every week which I would need to do in order to reach a level of competence where I'm no longer concentrating on all the basics to always be consistent in my shots, (I won't list all the basics) or the skills that are required for being competent at wind reading. ( we won't even discuss the learning curve to make 1000 yard target reloads and all the math involved- re Bryan Litz books)


There are 4 phases we go through when leaning something new. We start off as an unconscious incompetent (we don't know what we don't know) then with some education we become a conscious incompetent ( we begin to know that we have a lot to learn) then we move to a conscious competent ( we have learned and are becoming somewhat proficient at the task) and then we move to unconscious competent ( it becomes natural to us and we may not even realize that we did it) e.g. like driving home the same way every day - sometimes you are not even thinking about your driving and suddenly find yourself in your garage but can't even remember much about the drive.


Research done on people who are the best in their field says that natural talent isn't the main factor - research says it takes 10,000 hours of proper practice with input from a coach to master something, to reach a level of excellence where you are separated from the pack. Thus the expression "a jack if all trades but master of none." True Mastery requires a big sacrifice of time and money.


I was an unconscious incompetent shooter, but after having taken a number of courses (Milcun etc) and still taking more Id consider myself a conscious incompetent ...especially compared to many on this board. I've still have a great deal to learn and I'm becoming aware of how much I not only need to learn but become proficient at to reach my personal goals. It takes time to become a unconscious competent shooter - your body and mind have gone through the routine so many times it has become second nature where you don't consciously think about every detail. As an unconscious competent ( mastery level) if something doesn't go correctly you can quickly assess what went wrong to make an adjustment because you have likely encountered a similar situation before.


Finally the why I no longer use FFPscopes
I live and hunt in Ontario .... where I seldom get a shot requiring more then 200 yards, because there is a lot of bush. ( I realize if you hunt moose way further north that could be different), so a 3-9x40 or 2- 7x32 is usually all most hunters want for fast target acquisition and for short distances I don't think the FFP provides me with any advantages


I could not keep all the different variables straight between SFP & FFP and found myself getting confused as a result, which led to me losing confidence. When hunting I always have a range finder (thus I never use my reticle to range) plus I target practice with my rifle/bullet combo so I'm familiar with my reticle & POI at different powers and distance (I even trying to use same scope reticle on different rifles so I don't have to focus on reticle differences between hunting rifles) I removed the FFP scope variable from target and hunting because it caused me more confusion. I found I was not enjoying the woods or the hunt because I was concentrating on what I needed to remember with a FFP scope . I have ALSO reduced my hunting rifles down to 2 calibers for the same reason.


If I was hunting out west where long range hunting is more common then I might do things differently, but for me I need to apply the KISS principle because I just don't have one of those brains that can hold all that numerical data and conversions in Ram memory nor do I have the hours to spend shooting to become consciously competent with both types of scopes. For me much of that information feels like its stored on a slower hard drive which means it takes my brain more time to access it, which I may not have when hunting and required to take a shot.


i want to enjoy shooting (target and hunting) but when I have to constantly focus on too many variables I'm not focused on enjoying what I'm actually there to do.


Im sure others don't have this issue, and all those details just sit in that instant access part of your brain where you don't feel tired at the end of the day just trying to remember everything, but for me KISS makes shooting much more enjoyable.

 

[kombayotch]

If you got confused with FFP, you were trying to run the scope like an SFP scope. You were probably taught to do so by instructors that don't know to use FFP. Guessing they had you trying to estimate the size of your miss based on target size or the size of features like scoring rings, then made you do math based on how big the scope clicks are at whatever distance in order to figure out your correction. You probably found that confusing and hard to do with mil turrets (which it is). The thing is those steps are completely unnecessary with FFP... they require you to do additional math in your head instead of concentrating you other things like wind.

FFP is a car, SFP is a horse and buggy. The car is easier to use than the horse and buggy if you sit inside and drive it the way its intended, but way harder to use if you try and hook up a horse to it and use it like the horse and buggy. There is nothing at all that is harder about it if you're using it the right way, nothing. There are fewer variables to consider, no math to do for shot corrections, leads on movers only depend on target speed (vs. speed + distance for SFP), there are fewer dials that need to be at specifics settings that you can forget to set. That's why the military switched to it, there are fewer things that can go wrong when things are done under stress. There is less to remember and less to think about while you're shooting.

 

[mildot]

Although it's been said many times and many ways, Kombayotch gets it right. If I had to explain it, in as fewest words as possible I'd say, shoot, measure the correction with the reticle and dial the turrets, it's that easy. There is no math, no conversion, the correction you see at the reticle is what you dial. Too easy.