FFP vs SFP

D

DinoS

Regular
EE Expired
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Location
SW Ontario
|I did a search and can't find much about the advantage of either. I have found two Vortex PST's in the 4-16x SFP for 799.00 each. I was looking for the FFP but can't seem to find one. What would be the advantage of the second over the first other than the reticle doesn't expand with magnification. This non ezpanding reticle will not obscure the target. Ranging with the first would be at a spacific magnification and thats fine but will the come ups using the EBR 1 reticle be accurate or only in the high mag. I am not sure.

Dino

If someone out there has a FFP contact me pleeeeeeeeeeese.
 
Last edited:
I just got a Vortex FFP and so far so good. The reticle is ultra fine and is great for precision work. Even at the highest magnification, the FFP does not overly obscure the target. I have a SFP Vortex as well with a wire reticle-the FFP on the highest mag is finer than this reticle-BDC on the Viper line (vs. Viper HS).

I guess the benefit in a hunting application is that the holdovers apply at any setting with FFP. I missed a coyote awhile back as I didn't have the SFP reticle on the highest setting on a holdover-it was a miss. In the heat of the moment, when you don't have time for math or extra seconds to make scope adjustments, the FFP has an advantage IMHO.
 
If using the reticle for holdover, the FFP has the advantage of not requiring a certain magnification to work properly. It also has the advantage of constant wind holds, regardless of magnification. That's the biggest advantage to me. If I need to hold 3 MOA of windage, I don't have to worry about the magnification.

The turrets always work the same, whether SFP or FFP.

Advantage of SFP:

- The reticle obscures less of the target at high mag

- Cheaper

Advantage of FFP:

- Reticle subtension is always consistent for elevation and windage compensation holds

- No chance of POI movement with change in magnification
 
Kombayotch, Those are the articles I was looking for. I knew I had seen them. I also found this one on a different site. http://ww w.primalrights.com/forum/article.php?a=4789 . I think I am going with the FFP, the wait starts. I like the idea of not having to change anything to run my dope with the reticle be it mil/mil or moa/moa. And I agree with the math in a hurry. I also agree with to bad the EBR reticle was not availlable on the PST.

Dino
 
My PR shooting partner just switched one of his scopes to FFP and after shooting if for a couple months he now wants to change all of them to FFP.

Although, technically there shouldn't be a difference between mil/mil and moa/moa, there are some key things to consider. I would recommend mil/mil for the following reasons:
  • mil is the standard militaries have adopted. When you look at the new high-end tactical scope offerings, they are all in mil. MOA versions of some scopes are available in some brands like Vortex, but MOA is rapidly loosing ground in the tactical arena. It'll be less and less common as more people realize that there is no big learning curve switching to mils. Its only complicated if you try and use the scope like an SFP scope, trying to figure out all the math.

  • There is no standard for MOA reticles. The reticle sub-tensions may be 1 MOA, 2 MOA, 3MOA or 5 MOA depending on the manufacturer. On mil scopes (the higher magnification ones at least), there is always a 1 mil sub-tension. It may get subdivided further, but you will always find 1 mil hash marks. This matters when you start switching between scopes. Its another potential for error.

  • If you ever want to do ranging with the reticle (rare, yes), the formula is much simpler for mils because your multiplier is 1000 and the formula is the same whether you're working in yards or meters. Switching between the two is trivial.
 
There are certainly advantages to mil/mil systems, but MOA systems have advantages, too.

- MOA is a finer, more precise measurement system than mils. It's common to see scopes with 1/4MOA or 1/8MOA clicks. Even 0.1mil clicks are equal to ~0.34MOA. This can be an advantage when shooting at long range

- Working in whole number intervals is easier when using the reticle to compensate, than using decimals. Rather than saying that we need a 1/3mil wind hold, or a 1.5mil wind hold, we can say that we need a 1MOA or a 5MOA wind hold. The brain can work quicker in whole numbers

- The formula for ranging with an MOA reticle is dead simple. Size of target in inches x 95.5 / measured MOA sub-tension = range in yards. Essentially 95% of the target's size in inches, divided by the MOA reading that you get from your reticle, equals the range in yards. It doesn't get much simpler. I can't see why you'd need to use meters when using an MOA/MOA system

There are pro's and con's to both systems, but I can't see a real great difference between them, either way. They are both just angular measurement intervals. The military adopting a system doesn't necessarily motivate me to adopt same. If availability of MOA equipment options become scarce in the future, it's no big deal to switch to mil/mil, since as I said, they are both just angular measurement intervals, and the principles behind using either system are the same.
 
The finer resolution is irrelevant in field use, when shooting off of a bipod. Add any kind of dynamics to the situation like a mover or a snap target and most people struggle to hold 2 MOA. Even shooting deliberates, the 0.11 MOA difference between 1/4 MOA and 0.1 mil is lost in the noise. The difference is not noticeable when you aren't shooting from a rest or a $300 ultra-wide F-class bipod with a huge rear bag..

Nobody chooses fractions like 1/3 when working with mils (guessing you're trying to relate it to 1 MOA since it's called out in Keith and Linda's book). Your reticle is graduated in 0.5 mil hashes if you were intelligent enough not to get a simple mildot. Any hold you need can be attained using the reticle with 0.1 mil resolution being easily obtainable.

The need for meters depends on what shooting you do and who you are shooting with. If you're just screwing around by yourself or shooting local matches, then no you will probably never need to use meters. If you shoot sniper/tactical matches, some of them may give you all of your data (map distances {ranging data}, target sizes, etc...) in meters. It's easier to just flip the dope card over to meters and work in meters than to try and convert everything. Work in the units you are given.

While I agree that its simple to switch between them, selling the equipment at a future point may not be, especially if its higher end equipment where the users tend to be more knowledgeable. It isn't about following what the military does, its about realizing where the market is going and not buying something thats on the verge of being obsolete. Known distance target shooters will continue using MOA, but they want more magnification, SFP and finer reticles that don't have ranging/holdover features. They don't need many of features in the controls that tactical shooters want (zero stop, quick zeroing turrets, locking turrets...). And tactical shooters are going towards mils. An moa/moa tactical scope is going to be something that few people will want in the not too distance future. It's a bad investment...
 
This is largely a matter of preference, and the differences between the two are minute. I'm glad you are enjoying mils. I've used both, and I prefer MOA. We'll have to agree to disagree, but I can certainly see pro's and con's to each system.
 
The reason for the moa in my case is I don't work in metric. I know 10cm is 4" (close enough to it) but I can't guage the size of anything in cm. I can get close in inches. If my drop is 30" at a given distance I know what this equates to in dimention but is some one says 90cm it means nothing to me. I can't stop myself from doing the conversion in my head before I do something. I do the same with temperature. 33 degrees is just a number until I do the 33x2+32= holy crap its hot. Old habits die hard with me and I am baffled by this concidering in university 27 years ago everything in the Bsc program was metric. Having typed all of this does what I just said even make a difference or is the lack of knowledge of mil/mil unfounded. I need to find a good tutorial on the mil/mil use.

Dino

PS thanks for all the discussion
I can't find anywhere the FFP vortex in mil or moa and NF in FFP is not going to happen. The wait is going to kill me but will give me time to learn
 
DinoS said:
The reason for the moa in my case is I don't work in metric. I know 10cm is 4" (close enough to it) but I can't guage the size of anything in cm. I can get close in inches. If my drop is 30" at a given distance I know what this equates to in dimention but is some one says 90cm it means nothing to me. I can't stop myself from doing the conversion in my head before I do something. I do the same with temperature. 33 degrees is just a number until I do the 33x2+32= holy crap its hot. Old habits die hard with me and I am baffled by this concidering in university 27 years ago everything in the Bsc program was metric. Having typed all of this does what I just said even make a difference or is the lack of knowledge of mil/mil unfounded. I need to find a good tutorial on the mil/mil use.

Dino

PS thanks for all the discussion
I can't find anywhere the FFP vortex in mil or moa and NF in FFP is not going to happen. The wait is going to kill me but will give me time to learn
Click to expand...


??? mil is not metric, moa is not imperial they are each are there own units.
you should teach yourself to think in mils or moa and not inches/cm.

check out shooter ready video game for an easy way to learn.
 
The thing is, we aren't driving the market up here, and most of our matches tend to be fixed distances at known target sizes (I'd really like to see that change). People tend to look at things only from a deliberate, known distance target shooting perspective. You can shoot both types of match up here with the same setup and still be somewhat competitive. In the US, if you talk about tactical shooting and F-Class shooting, you see a much bigger difference in the matches. There are a ton of tactical matches that are unknown distances with unknown/inconsistent target sizes. You get snaps and sometimes even movers at unknown distances. In some of them time is factored into the score similar to IPSC, and just being accurate isn't enough to win. Being slow costs you.

The difference in equipment needed to be competitive in each discipline is much greater. The scope manufacturers see this and you can see the divergence in their product lines already. What the F'ers want and what the tactical shooters want is distinctly different. There is a similar divergence appearing in the lower power scopes between the tactical shooters and the 3-gunners.
 
Yes, what caustic said. With FFP, you should never need to think about how many inches or centimeters a mil is. It's irrelevant. You measure with your reticle and correct directly on the turrets.

A mil is neither metric or imperial, its an angle. It it just works out more closely with metric because its base 10.

1 mil = 1 unit rise over 1000 units run

It is
  • 1 yard at 1000 yards
  • 1 meter at 1000 meters
  • 1" at 1000"
  • 1 cm at 1000 cm
  • 1 parsec at 1000 parsecs
  • ...

0.1 mil is 1 unit rise over 10000 units run.

Why is 0.1 mil 0.36" at 100 yards?
1 yard = 36"
100 yards = 3600"
3600" / 10000 = 0.36"

Why is it 1 cm at 100 meters
1 meter = 100 cm
100 meters = 10000 cm
10000 cm / 10000 = 1 cm

Your formula for ranging with mils is: distance (units) = (height of target in units)/height of target in mils) x 1000

Distance (yards) = height in yards / height in mils x 1000

Distance (meters) = height in meters / height in mils x 1000

meters ~= yards + 10%
yards ~= meter - 10%

Its very simple to work in any unit of measurement with mils.
 
A mil is actually 1/1000 of a radian. A full circle is 2(pi) radians, which is 2 (3.14159) radians. That equals 6.283 radians. That equals 360 degrees. One full circle is 6,283 milRadians, or 21,600 MOA. So as an angular measurement, one mil is 1/6,283 of a full circle. If you divide a compass into 6,283 equal parts (instead of 360, as with degrees), a mil would be one of those parts. An MOA would be 1/21,600 of a full circle, or 1/60 of 1 degree.

It's simple to work with various units of measurement, with either MOA or mil, if you're familiar with the formulas for both.

MOA:

Distance (yards)= height in inches x 95.5 / height in MOA

If you want meters, subtract 10% from the distance in yards.

Mil:

Distance (yards) = height in yards / height in mils x 1000

To get meters, again just subtract 10% from the distance in yards.

Neither seems overly complicated.
 
I ran across a tutorial on the Horus web site which is a simulator similar to the shooter ready. I get it. Thanks for the education.

Dino

ht tp://www.horusvision.com/img/hrsgame.swf even though the formula is different, measure, calculate, plug in the come up, send it.
 
Last edited:
DinoS said:
The reason for the moa in my case is I don't work in metric. I know 10cm is 4" (close enough to it) but I can't guage the size of anything in cm. I can get close in inches. If my drop is 30" at a given distance I know what this equates to in dimention but is some one says 90cm it means nothing to me. I can't stop myself from doing the conversion in my head before I do something. I do the same with temperature. 33 degrees is just a number until I do the 33x2+32= holy crap its hot. Old habits die hard with me and I am baffled by this concidering in university 27 years ago everything in the Bsc program was metric. Having typed all of this does what I just said even make a difference or is the lack of knowledge of mil/mil unfounded. I need to find a good tutorial on the mil/mil use.

Dino

PS thanks for all the discussion
I can't find anywhere the FFP vortex in mil or moa and NF in FFP is not going to happen. The wait is going to kill me but will give me time to learn
Click to expand...

Old habits really die hard but after I figured out my first MIL FFP scope I have never looked back. Being able to range, dial up or come up at any distance without worrying about "am I at the right magnification?"(it's not always max), means the world to me out in the field.

Regardless of MOA/MIL I would highly recommend FFP. I now have Nightforce, USO and Premier Reticles all in FFP MIL/MIL configuration.
 
Getting myself a good education this weekend, been doing loads of reading and watching. I kind of feel stupid now for lack of knowledge prior to posting. Thanks all for your input.

I found a dealer who has PST's in stock, mil and moa. He is is the US and I am now trying to get the papers in order to import one. He is looking into it from his side. I did read the sticky above for import. I find it hard to believe Canada is on the Department of Commerce list for Firearm Convention and Afghanistan and Republic of Congo are not according to the Country Commerce list. For all the good it will do I sent a letter to Vic Towes requesting their party look into signing the ITAR aggrement removing Canada from the restrictions, I hope I got that information right.

Dino
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom