First focal plane

[DeerDucksFishin]

Can anyone explain the benefits of a FFP over a SFP or vice versa?

 

[RCS Deer Management]

of shooting at long range a ffp scope offers the advantage of the fact that as you change the magnification the reticule stays the same size in relation to the target, so if using a mil dot reticule you know that the dots will allways work for the same range regardless of what magnification the scope is on. With Sfp scopes the reticule changes size in relation to the background so if you have mill dots you will allways have to use the scope on the same magnification for them to be effective. So going by this you would think that the ffp scope is the best, however if you wind the magnification right down low the reticule shrinks with the image, and the crosshairs can get hard to see as the lines get really small and thin, whereas on a Sfp scope even on low mag the crosshairs are clear and easy to see. Basically try both and see what you like, most stalkers like Sfp because they tend to be better to use on low mag at last light, whereas most long range shooters use ffp scopes because they know they can allways count on the reticule to be true for aiming off to allow for drop. I hope that makes sense

 

[Nick T]

It's a matter of personal preference to me. FFP I find good for long range target shooting, it gives me a good quick indication of the fall of shot over the particular range. As minikeeper says the reticle graduations indicate the same distance regardless of scope magnification. I only ever use 2nd FP scopes for stalking, my reason being that I rarely shoot at the animal at distances greater than 250m & at that distance I know the drop & wind effect on each rifle (which isn't very much). Try both types of scope & get a good idea of each.

 

[DeerDucksFishin]

Thanks gents great answers

 

[Whitebeard]

I shoot long range varmints with a SFP scope and so do all of my shooting buddies partaking in the same practice, none of us can see any advantages using FFP scopes in fact we all agree it would actually be a disadvantage

Ian.

 

[DeerDucksFishin]

I shoot long range varmints with a SFP scope and so do all of my shooting buddies partaking in the same practice, none of us can see any advantages using FFP scopes in fact we all agree it would actually be a disadvantage

Ian.

thanks for the reply Ian Im leaning slightly towards the SFP A. its for stalking B. its much cheaper!

 

[Bell308]

I'm with Whitebeard on this one, I use FFP for target work only. in low light I loose the definition, however I mainly use a fixed S&B 8x56 for stalking and fox work, the hairs are a bit thicker than most but still usable in low light.

 

[enfieldspares]

I can never remember which is which.

But I prefer the one where the reticule stays the same and doesn't increase or decrease in size according to magnification "dialled in" on the 'scope. I use 3x or 5x most times but if I want 9x "dialled in" I want what I'm looking at not obscured by a the reticule.

My 'scopes are Zeiss so at 3x or 4x (or on one 1.5x or 2.5x) the (duplex type) reticule is just good as it is and doesn't disappear. It's designed properly to be the right size at the lowest setting. Increasing magnification it's therefore still, always as it doesn't alter, still at the right size.

 

[The Singing Stalker]

I use ffp on my foxing scope with night vision. I use it to rangefind within reason how far a fox is. It works pretty well as I can be reasonably certain of the distance to be sure of good bullet placement.

 

[xavierdoc]

I like FFP for certain range and field target shooting as I can make rapid corrections after observing sighting shots (no more than two in most comps) or fall-of-shot through the scope, reading directly off the reticle. Likewise in "unknown distance" comps where you have to range a target (of known or estimatable size.) For precision shooting the crosshairs can be too thick/coarse for precise aiming, though.

For hunting, SFP is my preferred option. The exception might be the FFP TMCQ Vortex 1-4 PST: at 1x the reticle represents a fast-acquisition style "ring and central x" but at 4x the central area is quite a fine crosshair for more precise aiming. In conjunction with a throwlever, this would make a fine driven boar/woodland scope.

 

[rem284]

on some ffp scopes when you zoom in the cross hairs become thick relative to the target size so too much is obscured. thats why i use sfp scopes

 

[Marcher]

Most people use rangefinders now, so the "measuring" ability of mil dots is less of a requirement. You can still aim-off to account for wind or drop, by "mirroring". If you shot falls "a mil dot" to the right, your next shot is aimed "a mil dot" to the left, irrespective of what that distance measures.

 

[ejg]

I have both versions. My SFP have plex reticles as mildot would be useless. FFP is my favourite as one can measure amount of clicks need to zero, or for second shot hit at any distance. As for reticle covering, my ffp scope covers 2" at 1km meaning one could put it on a rabbits head at 1000m I think that is fine enough. For low light at low mag I have a illumination.
FFP scopes don't have a POI change at mag change, all SFP scopes do, some more some less.
edi

 

[enfieldspares]

"Mirroring"

Eh!? As in "bracketing" like in the artillery? My father did it certainly, in the war, on anti-aircraft, it's why his binoculars had graticules marked on the lenses. I trained also, at Larkhill, on giving fire orders for it...but on deer? Bracketing? Do they stay around that long? A target that big? Surely at ranges where you need to "bracket" you'll have wounded rather than missed them?

 

[The tramp]

People do shoot targets other than deer y'know.

 

[straightpull6547]

I have both versions. My SFP have plex reticles as mildot would be useless. FFP is my favourite as one can measure amount of clicks need to zero, or for second shot hit at any distance. As for reticle covering, my ffp scope covers 2" at 1km meaning one could put it on a rabbits head at 1000m I think that is fine enough. For low light at low mag I have a illumination.
FFP scopes don't have a POI change at mag change, all SFP scopes do, some more some less.
edi

+1

 

[RCS Deer Management]

I and most of my mates use ffp for everything. I just prefer it, I can't see any advantage to the Sfp, my ffp is perfect on 6x mag for deer and has an illuminated dot wich helps. Don't listen to anyone else's opinion definitely try both its a matter of personal preference.

 

[Lupus]

on some ffp scopes when you zoom in the cross hairs become thick relative to the target size so too much is obscured. thats why i use sfp scopes

No they don't. That's the point. The size of the reticule remains the same relative to the target regardless of magnification.

Wolfie

 

[The Singing Stalker]

Most people use rangefinders now, so the "measuring" ability of mil dots is less of a requirement. You can still aim-off to account for wind or drop, by "mirroring". If you shot falls "a mil dot" to the right, your next shot is aimed "a mil dot" to the left, irrespective of what that distance measures.

Difficult to use a rangefinder in the dark.

 

[straightpull6547]

No they don't. That's the point. The size of the reticule remains the same relative to the target regardless of magnification.

Wolfie

German hunting scopes in 1fp often have overly thick reticles, is is noticeable when you zoom up. Ok for slotting a pig in the moonlight but no good for longer range deer work. I like a p4l fein myself.