Which do you prefer ffp or sfp

tikka 3006

Well-Known Member
As per title just wondering what guys prefer in a scope first focal plain or second focal plain. Just curious. Maybe you could say why you prefer either or
 
The one where the reticule stays the same size. I can't fathom what advantage the other gives in having the beast pretty much obscured by the reticule when on a high power magnification...especially if you have to hold over at longer range so you in fact obscure the intended point of impact of your shot...and "range finding" can easily be worked out on a "stays the same size reticule" if you set it at the lowest power and do the working out from that.

So at 100x the gap covers one deer, at 200x two deer and so on.

Easy to work out with a three foot lath of wood at the various distances. Then just remember how many, at the lowest power, fit into the gap at each distance. Like on a basic fixed power military sniper 'scope is used. Half the height of a man's body.
 
Last edited:
I like both. The TDS reticle has to stay the same size relative to the target, otherwise it doesn't really work. The super-fine ret on the target/vermin scope must stay fine.

For airguns, .22LR and deer however, 6x42 is all that's needed.
:)
 
I like both. The TDS reticle has to stay the same size relative to the target, otherwise it doesn't really work. The super-fine ret on the target/vermin scope must stay fine.

For airguns, .22LR and deer however, 6x42 is all that's needed.
:)

Swarovski tds scopes are all 2fp
 
Tikka, you'd need to specify the intended use if you want good advice.

For long range small targets SFP is an absolute must.

Ian.

There's FFP designs where line thickness for center cross is e.g. 0.05 MRAD.

At 300y that would be just over 1/2" (around 17/32"), I don't see this could be of hindrance.

Personally I have and use both. I guess I'd prefer FFP if I could design my own reticles and have them installed at no additional cost. That not being the case, I mostly choose SFP, especially because the assortment is much wider.

Traditionally FFP was used for low light shooting. Just recently I acquired a Meopta 3-9x scope with SFP #4, especially for low light shooting. It fits my purposes perfectly since the posts are thick even at 3x magnification. I'm somewhat annoyed with traditional non-illuminated FFP designs since I like to use low magnification to gain FOV, and the reticles are designed to be used at max mag...

One use where I love FFP reticle with frequent hash marks (0.5MRAD in my case) is shooting subsonic with good rest to varying distances. In my case this would be dove hunting with 22LR, 20-100m (lasered). In UK context it could be e.g. bunny bashing but you'd have to know the distances.

Reticle based range finding isn't much use for me since beasts/birds can easily vary 20% in size. That would equal missing or wounding at the distances that range finding was needed at the first place.
 
If the cross hairs on a FFP scope cover an area of the beast that's say even 2" of area, and the hairs increase in size as the magnificTion is turned up, the size of the target also increases in size, therefore the actual covered area of the target remains exactly the same.

Given the shooting test for DSC means popping your bullets in a 4" target I wouldn't worry about it.....

I've used a 6-24x50 Swarovski SFP scope for several years. I'm in the process of changing it for a FFP scope. Prior to the Swarovski it was a S&B FFP. For stalking purposes your kidding yourself on if you think it makes a jot of a difference....

Unless of course your shooting deer and vermin beyond 600m...
 
I prefer FFP all my sporting or longer range rifles have ftp scopes.

I like the ret to stay the same size.

I also prefer Mil Mil (Mil ret and Mil ajust)


For F Class I use SFP, but thats only two scopes, used for specific tasks
 
I prefer FFP all my sporting or longer range rifles have ftp scopes.

I like the ret to stay the same size.

I also prefer Mil Mil (Mil ret and Mil ajust)

For F Class I use SFP, but thats only two scopes, used for specific tasks

Redmist thats a bit contradictive mate;)

Ian.
 
Redmist thats a bit contradictive mate;)

Ian.

I find this whole thing very confusing. I am fairly stupid though :oops:

First Focal Plane - reticle gets bigger, but stays the same size.

Second Focal plane - reticle stays the same size, but gets smaller.

Is that right?
 
I find this whole thing very confusing. I am fairly stupid though :oops:

First Focal Plane - reticle gets bigger, but stays the same size.

Second Focal plane - reticle stays the same size, but gets smaller.

Is that right?

FFP reticle increases in size as the magnification is increased but stays the same sizein relation to the image.
SFP the reticle stays the same size all through the magnification range just the size of the image increases.

Ian.
 
Back
Top