FFP Vs SFP for Target shooting

[Member-Deleted]

Hey crew,

What are everyone's thoughts on which is better for Target shooting.
(I do know what the difference is between the two before someone wastes an hour typing up the differences)

From what I'm reading on the interwebs SFP is better for hunting in the general consensus especially for long distance stuff and FFP is more down the tactical path of doing things for faster target acquisition at different distances etc.

Is that sounding sorta kinda right??

Cheers. Denno

[bladeracer]

Hey crew,

What are everyone's thoughts on which is better for Target shooting.
(I do know what the difference is between the two before someone wastes an hour typing up the differences)

From what I'm reading on the interwebs SFP is better for hunting in the general consensus especially for long distance stuff and FFP is more down the tactical path of doing things for faster target acquisition at different distances etc.

Is that sounding sorta kinda right??

Cheers. Denno

SFP.
FFP keeps the reticle a constant size regardless of magnification. You only need the reticle to be constant if you are using it to range targets or for holding-over. In competition you won't be ranging your targets and you certainly won't be holding-over.

[Sergeant Hartman]

I started with FFP, but now all my scopes are SFP. Find them better, fclass and br... use sfp. Only PRS type like FFP....But then I seem then using range finders.

[Member-Deleted]

I started with FFP, but now all my scopes are SFP. Find them better, fclass and br... use sfp. Only PRS type like FFP....But then I seem then using range finders.

This is why I ask mate. I thing MRS looks the most fun of the disciplines.
From my research it seems it’s just a personal choice

[wannabustbunnies]

SFP.
FFP keeps the reticle a constant size regardless of magnification. You only need the reticle to be constant if you are using it to range targets or for holding-over. In competition you won't be ranging your targets and you certainly won't be holding-over.

SFP the reticle stays a constant size. FFP the reticle increases/decreases in relation to magnification but the subtensions remain the same regardless of magnification.
If you are looking at PRS type target shooting then FFP is the way to go as you will more than likely be holding for both elevation and windage and your holds will be correct on whatever magnification you choose. The target distances are normally known for each stage so you won't be using the reticle to range but you also won't be at max magnification either when you are alternating between targets and doing activities or changing position etc between shots. Most stages are around 10 rounds in 90 seconds to 2 minutes so dialling elevation between targets costs you time also.
F Class or benchrest then SFP is the go.

[bladeracer]

SFP the reticle stays a constant size. FFP the reticle increases/decreases in relation to magnification but the subtensions remain the same regardless of magnification.
If you are looking at PRS type target shooting then FFP is the way to go as you will more than likely be holding for both elevation and windage and your holds will be correct on whatever magnification you choose. The target distances are normally known for each stage so you won't be using the reticle to range but you also won't be at max magnification either when you are alternating between targets and doing activities or changing position etc between shots. Most stages are around 10 rounds in 90 seconds to 2 minutes so dialling elevation between targets costs you time also.
F Class or benchrest then SFP is the go.

In FFP you are magnifying the reticle as well as the field of view as you increase magnification, because the reticle increases size with the magnification, the subtensions also increase thus the math stays the same.

In SFP you are only magnifying the field of view, the reticle stays the same size. Because the reticle does not get magnified, the subtensions are different at different magnifications. In my scopes the holdovers are correct at 18-power, at 9-power the holdovers are twice as much, at 4.5-power they're four times as much. As long as you remain aware of your magnification you can still use the reticle for ranging targets and holding over.
At 18-power the top of my post is 15.4 minutes of holdover, at 9-power it's 30.8 minutes, at 4.5-power it's 61.6 minutes.

[wannabustbunnies]

Personal preference at the end of the day really. I only run FFP scopes now and don't have to worry about what power I am on for holdovers or wind. A 2 mil hold is the same regardless of magnification which makes it easy.
If you can, try both styles and see what fits your purpose the best. Plenty of good scopes out there to choose from

[bladeracer]

Personal preference at the end of the day really. I only run FFP scopes now and don't have to worry about what power I am on for holdovers or wind. A 2 mil hold is the same regardless of magnification which makes it easy.
If you can, try both styles and see what fits your purpose the best. Plenty of good scopes out there to choose from

How often do you find yourself holding off at different magnifications?
Most people tend to use only minimum zoom when walking, and maximum zoom once they've settled in position. Some might also use a mid-range position for optimal exit pupil or clarity.

[wannabustbunnies]

How often do you find yourself holding off at different magnifications?
Most people tend to use only minimum zoom when walking, and maximum zoom once they've settled in position. Some might also use a mid-range position for optimal exit pupil or clarity.

When shooting PRS style comps I am nearly always holding off on the targets unless it's a fixed distance stage then I dial for that distance. I am at 10-12 X power at our comps for the extra field of view which helps when changing between targets at different distances and/or getting back on target after changing positions.
Walking around chasing rabbits or foxes I run a bit less mag like you mentioned and can increase mag to whatever I want for the shot and depending on the circumstances dial or hold on any mag. Or I just come up .2 or .3 mils from my 100m zero and shoot MPBR style.
Of a night with my add on night vision I use low mag for the FOV as there is some built in magnification to the add on and then the same as above applies.

[Member-Deleted]

I'm starting to seeing like this....and please correct me if I'm wrong so i can learn from it

Simply, the FFP kind of takes out the guess work as the subtensions are correct at any magnification.

In reality, it can be used for any discipline that the SFP can.

It just has the added extra feature of shifting magnification for different ranges should the need arise with less mental "allowances" needed... Perfect for M/PRS you might say as it makes target acquisition quicker, which his why I guess most "tactical" scopes are FFP. (citation needed)
One might say an FFP is a scope for targets that are moving around... ie. Either shooting from a static position with targets at different distances or even walk-thru ranges.... which ever way ya want to look at it.
Whereas an SFP is a scope best suited to a fixed position and a single known target distance, like a sniper or hunter.

If you look at an FFP with a simple reticle without subtensions, at any given set magnification it is just an SPF with a fatter or thinner reticle.
With the added bonus of knowing the POI will be correct.

The only downside I can see with using an FFP (for ANY target or silhouette disciplines) is that a very fine reticle is needed so it doesn't block the shooter from seeing a small bullseye at a long distance as was previously stated by someone...
For me that isn't a drama. I used to shoot competition air rifle when I was a young fella and it was literally impossible to see the bullseye as it was a .5mm centre from 10m away with peep sights



I guess in a nutshell, an FFP can do anything SFP can do and in some circumstances more.... But is a few more $$

That and the old 'personal preferences" are really the only things that come into play.


Cheers and thanks fellas. I have learnt Soo much about scopes since I asked the question... But it's still just the tip of the iceberg.

They are such incredible little, well... machines really...

Kind of like a clock that just doesn't move... and that you can look through

[bladeracer]

I'm starting to seeing like this....and please correct me if I'm wrong so i can learn from it

Simply, the FFP kind of takes out the guess work as the subtensions are correct at any magnification.

In reality, it can be used for any discipline that the SFP can.

It just has the added extra feature of shifting magnification for different ranges should the need arise with less mental "allowances" needed... Perfect for M/PRS you might say as it makes target acquisition quicker, which his why I guess most "tactical" scopes are FFP. (citation needed)
One might say an FFP is a scope for targets that are moving around... ie. Either shooting from a static position with targets at different distances or even walk-thru ranges.... which ever way ya want to look at it.
Whereas an SFP is a scope best suited to a fixed position and a single known target distance, like a sniper or hunter.

If you look at an FFP with a simple reticle without subtensions, at any given set magnification it is just an SPF with a fatter or thinner reticle.
With the added bonus of knowing the POI will be correct.

The only downside I can see with using an FFP (for ANY target or silhouette disciplines) is that a very fine reticle is needed so it doesn't block the shooter from seeing a small bullseye at a long distance as was previously stated by someone...
For me that isn't a drama. I used to shoot competition air rifle when I was a young fella and it was literally impossible to see the bullseye as it was a .5mm centre from 10m away with peep sights



I guess in a nutshell, an FFP can do anything SFP can do and in some circumstances more.... But is a few more $$

That and the old 'personal preferences" are really the only things that come into play.


Cheers and thanks fellas. I have learnt Soo much about scopes since I asked the question... But it's still just the tip of the iceberg.

They are such incredible little, well... machines really...

Kind of like a clock that just doesn't move... and that you can look through

I wouldn't say either one does anything the other can't do, they do the same thing in two different ways is all.

One thing SFP can do that FFP can't is give you variable subtensions, as I explained about the holdovers changing with magnification. My reticle has holdovers out to 15.4MoA (for a theoretical zero at 600yds with a specific .223Rem load) at 18-power. If I'm shooting a load that requires say 31 minutes (heavier bullet, reduced velocity, a blunt hunting bullet, or simply a different cartridge - like .22LR) I can wind the scope back to 9-power, hold on the same "600yd" sub tension, and voila, I have a 31 minute holdover. Printing a dope card of the variations throughout the magnification range is no harder than any other dope card.

You can also range targets the same way, by adjusting the magnification to fit the reticle to the target, read the magnification, and read the dope. For example, you set out 150mm gongs (roughly the size of a non-helmeted head) at random distances. I'm using a 150mm target simply because it fits easily in metric or imperial ranging, 150mm is roughly 6MoA at 100yds and 5MoA at 100m (so I don't need a calculator for this example, I'm doing this on my phone). My scope has holdovers at 1.7, 4.4, 7.6, 11.4, and 15.4 minutes - at 18-power. At full mag, I put my reticle on the first target and it covers about three-quarters of the height to the second (or 4.4MoA) dot, about 3.3MoA, so I already know the 150mm-tall target (5MoA@100m) is around the 150m mark (at 200m the gong is 2.5MoA remember, so at 150m it's 3.33MoA). If I want more precision, I can adjust the magnification to fit one of the marks as neatly over the target as I can. I can't make the reticle "smaller", so I wind the mag back until the 1.7MoA gap "grows" to cover the target, then read the magnification. In this case it's 9-power, making the subtension actually 3.4MoA. So our 5MoA@100m gong is at about 145m. As my scope has 1MoA dots, I can do the same to make a dot fit over the target instead of the gaps between the holdovers.

It sounds complex, and takes a long while to explain what is not very complex, but with practice it becomes second nature, you can roughly estimate the range as soon as you put the reticle over the target, without having to adjust the magnification, regardless of the type of reticle you use. The most rudimentary version of this is learning the fields of view in your scope at various magnifications, mine goes from 63MoA (roughly one degree) at 18-power to 230MoA at 4.5-power. This is one reason all my scopes are identical, including the reticle - I am familiar with how large things should appear in my scope. Calculating it merely gives you a more accurate range estimate, but if you need precision use a laser.

But the primary reason to prefer SFP for precision shooting is the fine reticle, whether you're at 4-power or 24-power. You can see the difference in the picture I posted. You can also see how the holdovers change as magnification does.

[bladeracer]

I should add that I prefer a BDC over a straight minute or millirad grid. If I'm looking at a large target or at long range, I get lost trying to count twelve graduations, I find it easier to use the increasingly wider graduations without getting lost

[Member-Deleted]

I can understand how and why you would do it that way Bladeracer.
To me it looks complicated and that would allow me to bugger it up easily. I like things a little more simple mate.

As soon as I can I'll be making a dope sheet for a few different brands of ammo, whichever ones the rifle tells me it likes, with elevation adjustment values for different distances like 25, 40, 50, 77, 100, 125, 150 etc.

In theory, and with a good FFP scope, in practice too, I should be able to take it to a comp, shoot a few sighters, look through the scope at any magnification and easily see any adjustment that needs to be made as the subtensions will be 100% relevant to the image. Adjust to suit, then shoot away enjoy the competition.... In a perfect work anyway

No need for any complicated (to me anyway ) maths. Let the equipment do the work.

[bladeracer]

The maths is just an example of what can be done, I would expect anybody shooting long range to use a laser, nobody ranges precision shots using a reticle

Have a look through some FFP and SFP scopes when you're at the range.

[bladeracer]

I wouldn't be too concerned about doping different .22LR ammo, just determine the most accurate, and the most accurate for the price. Of the seventy-five-odd types I've tried in my Rugers, the very best is SK High-Velocity, now discontinued, and I only have about 100rds left. Next best are CCI Standard Velocity and Eley Edge on par with each other. If I were going to shoot competition I would probably use the Edge, although I think this is now discounted also, I have maybe 750rds still. Although they shoot very similarly, CCI SV is more likely to throw the rare flier. As it is a third of the cost of Edge though it means I can shoot a couple thousand rounds every month very inexpensively.

When I was a kid I looked at the plethora of .22LR ammo and figured it must be so lacking in versatility that you need to use a different ammo with every shot you take. It never occurred to me that millions and millions of rabbits, foxes, prairie dogs and squirrels have been taken with the cheapest "solid round nose" bullet that people could find, and with rifles most people nowadays would only see fit for the scrap heap.

Presidents have been killed with .22LR, as have thousands of gangbangers. It's all down to shot placement. A subsonic round nose will kill stuff better when placed accurately through the brain, cervical spine, or heart/lungs, than a Stinger will in the nose or guts.

I have many thousands of rounds for testing, and plinking, but for when I'm shooting to benefit my skills, or at live game I use the most accurate round. I have played with high-velocity ammo for knocking silhouettes over and find CCI Velocitor to be the best for me, but well behind the SV in accuracy. I decided I prefer to hit the steel and hope to drop it, than miss it with enough energy to be sure Shooting Silhouette offhand, with open sights is not easy, if I can hold 5MoA groups out to 100m I'm doing okay, when I know the ammo is holding 1MoA on top of that. With most ammo shooting 3MoA+ _from the bench_, any hits would require more luck than skill.

And I use CCI Quiet around the house, but I have a rifle zeroed to 40m just for that ammo.

[sungazer]

The FFP might sound good at first and on paper, but there is a lot the shooter has to know or make correct decisions before it all works. Personally I like the subtensin hash marks that are numbered. This is why.

The first thing that you need to know if you are going to use a hold over for elevations is all the dope data for your load in your head depending on the calibre what graduation distances you need to know.

So you need to know what distance the scope is zeroed for and then the dope data for say 50 yrd intervals. If it was a 22LR you would need to know the data at 10yrd intervals.

Then the next bit of decision you need to make is estimate the distance correctly. The whole point of FFP is to make things quicker so saying you can use the scope to work backward to calculate the distance is silly IMHO.

So from your now estimated distance and the dope data you have in your head you can place the correct hash mark correction on the centre of the target.

The windage is similar you have to look at the conditions and all the indicators that help with estimating the strength. Then you need that dope data in your head to match the hold over correction to the wind streangth and use that hash mark correction to place over the target.

I dont like the dots reticles as they are to big IMO and there is no data between them and often no data on the reticle as to what the spacing's are.

[bladeracer]

I dont like the dots reticles as they are to big IMO and there is no data between them and often no data on the reticle as to what the spacing's are.

I don't think I've ever seen a numbered reticle outside of the occasional military ones, like the SVD, but it's not too big a problem to remember five settings, or simply note them on the dope card. If you're going to be using different scopes it would be a lot to remember though.

Keep in mind, for precision shooting (say sub-MoA) you would never holdover, you would dial the scope to the distance so you can hold dead-on to eliminate cant.
I have done experiments at longer ranges using holdovers against dialing the scope in, to see how much the groups are affected by cant, although I'm not sure I've ever published the data anywhere. Even holding over where I can't even see the target in the scope, only the aiming mark up a pole high above the target.

[sungazer]

All my scopes have a level on them. I can look at the level with my left eye just as a quick check and still concentrate on the target in the scope.
This Bushnell G2 reticle in a 4-25 is what I have they are no longer made https://magnumsports.com.au/images/product/g2_2.gif It is now a 4-30 with a g3 reticle https://www.bushnell.com/products/rifle ... 4-5-30x50/

[wannabustbunnies]

One thing SFP can do that FFP can't is give you variable subtensions, as I explained about the holdovers changing with magnification. My reticle has holdovers out to 15.4MoA (for a theoretical zero at 600yds with a specific .223Rem load) at 18-power. If I'm shooting a load that requires say 31 minutes (heavier bullet, reduced velocity, a blunt hunting bullet, or simply a different cartridge - like .22LR) I can wind the scope back to 9-power, hold on the same "600yd" sub tension, and voila, I have a 31 minute holdover. Printing a dope card of the variations throughout the magnification range is no harder than any other dope card.

You can also range targets the same way, by adjusting the magnification to fit the reticle to the target, read the magnification, and read the dope. For example, you set out 150mm gongs (roughly the size of a non-helmeted head) at random distances. I'm using a 150mm target simply because it fits easily in metric or imperial ranging, 150mm is roughly 6MoA at 100yds and 5MoA at 100m (so I don't need a calculator for this example, I'm doing this on my phone). My scope has holdovers at 1.7, 4.4, 7.6, 11.4, and 15.4 minutes - at 18-power. At full mag, I put my reticle on the first target and it covers about three-quarters of the height to the second (or 4.4MoA) dot, about 3.3MoA, so I already know the 150mm-tall target (5MoA@100m) is around the 150m mark (at 200m the gong is 2.5MoA remember, so at 150m it's 3.33MoA). If I want more precision, I can adjust the magnification to fit one of the marks as neatly over the target as I can. I can't make the reticle "smaller", so I wind the mag back until the 1.7MoA gap "grows" to cover the target, then read the magnification. In this case it's 9-power, making the subtension actually 3.4MoA. So our 5MoA@100m gong is at about 145m. As my scope has 1MoA dots, I can do the same to make a dot fit over the target instead of the gaps between the holdovers.

It sounds complex, and takes a long while to explain what is not very complex, but with practice it becomes second nature, you can roughly estimate the range as soon as you put the reticle over the target, without having to adjust the magnification, regardless of the type of reticle you use. The most rudimentary version of this is learning the fields of view in your scope at various magnifications, mine goes from 63MoA (roughly one degree) at 18-power to 230MoA at 4.5-power. This is one reason all my scopes are identical, including the reticle - I am familiar with how large things should appear in my scope. Calculating it merely gives you a more accurate range estimate, but if you need precision use a laser.

Take your 150mm target ranging example and with a FFP mil scope just do this on any magnification

images.png (9.45 KiB) Viewed 10798 times

Like you said though much easier and precise to just use a laser as unless you know the actual target size and are measuring it correctly it's basically just a guess.

But the primary reason to prefer SFP for precision shooting is the fine reticle, whether you're at 4-power or 24-power. You can see the difference in the picture I posted. You can also see how the holdovers change as magnification does.

My FFP reticle thickness is a constant .054 mils (5.4mm @100m) regardless of magnification.
Your SFP with a reticle thickness of eg .125 MOA on max power 18x (3.64mm @100m) is actually 3 times thicker than mine at minimum magnification of 4.5 power (16.37mm @100m)

I think we have come a long way from your original intent though and everyone is free to use what best suits them.

[bladeracer]

My FFP reticle thickness is a constant .054 mils (5.4mm @100m) regardless of magnification.
Your SFP with a reticle thickness of eg .125 MOA on max power 18x (3.64mm @100m) is actually 3 times thicker than mine at minimum magnification of 4.5 power (16.37mm @100m)

I think we have come a long way from your original intent though and everyone is free to use what best suits them.

I would only be using minimum mag while I'm walking in and out of an area, to deal with immediate shots of opportunity, where the heavier reticle is a good thing. My reticle is .25MoA regardless of magnification, 7mm wide at 100m (I have confirmed this myself), 35mm on a fox at 500m, 70mm on a deer at 1000m - whether I'm on 4.5-power or on 18-power. I just checked it here at my desk, at 2400mm range the reticle covers far less than 1mm, possibly less than a quarter-millimeter (hard to be precise as it doesn't focus closer than 10yds) - the entire height of the reticle from crosshair to the post - 62 minutes at 4.5-power - covers about 50mm on a tape measure hanging on the door of my safe. On a snap shot at a fox at 20m the reticle covers 1.4mm of the fox, but is still heavy enough to pick up quickly. I have looked through scopes in the field with .14MoA reticles and they are far too fine for me to pick up against grass or trees, or anything other than white paper.

As you zoom in an FFP though, the reticle grows in size to conceal more of the target. Its angular dimensions don't change, but the coverage of the target does. Put your scope on a tape measure hanging at 20m and tell me what width the crosshair covers at minimum and maximum magnification, I'll try to remember to do it tomorrow myself, I don't think I've ever checked it under 100m. For me, FFP is the reverse of what you want, a heavy, easily-seen reticle at minimum magnification for snap shooting, and a finer reticle for precision at longer ranges.

focal_plane_debate.jpg (111.7 KiB) Viewed 10798 times

I totally agree it's personal preference. FFP costs a premium though, so it's well worth determining that it is what you require before lashing out the funds.

[wannabustbunnies]

Your reticle can't stay the same thickness regardless of magnification with a SFP scope because of where the reticle is physically located in the scope. Your BDC subtensions change depending on your magnification as well which have pointed out previously so you can't have one without the other.
If your reticle is .25 MOA at 18x and you have a 4.5 X erector SFP scope everything changes by a value of 4.5x because you are only magnifying the image.
A FFP the reticle and image increase/decrease in relation to each other.
In your image above look at the reticle positions relative to the deer. The FFP stays the same whereas the SFP starts out wider than the deer and moves inwards as the power is increased.
Here is two sets of reticle subtensions from Sightron. Both 6-24 power scopes so 4x erector, one is FFP the other SFP.

[wannabustbunnies]

Good example of the reticle position relative to the target with the same reticle in both focal planes.
https://youtu.be/UuF8ZQR-DJ4

[Vicko]

Just found this thread and I'm tossing up between FFP and SFP for my next scope at the moment too.. and I still haven't decided!

Two things I'll point out from the last few comments here.

Bladeracers image is a little misleading because it makes it look as though the reticle weights are pretty much the same at low magnification whereas the reverse is mostly true. FFPs only really suffer at low magnification because the reticle is TINY. From what I can gather - most FFP reticles are set to weight towards the upper end of magification, not the bottom.

Wannabustbunnies - I think Bladeracer was saying that the SFP reticle stays the same regardless of magnification 'in relation to the scope FOV'. Not the image.

[Vicko]

Oh and fwiw - I'm leaning towards an illuminated FFP. The illumination aspect should cater for the low magnification issue with reticle size.

[Aliqua]

I recently went for a SFP for my first scope... for a couple of reasons. First was I didnt like the rectile line thickness increasing when I zoomed in at long range / small target. Eg - I might not have been able to 'see' the small centres of target at 22+ power on an FFP but on the SFP the rectile doesnt change in size (with the intention if long distant shooting).

2nd was the price. I felt that I was able to get better glass and more power (zoom) in SFP than FFP within my budget.

Whichever you choose they have their own pros and cons of which you will learn. They both have maths attached but from what I've been told in similar queries once you learn it, it becomes second nature.

With SFP if you know the size of your target you can use the moa/mil lines to calculate the distance quite quickly with experience.

Best of luck with your endeavour!

[straightshooter]

Much of the discussion of FFP and SFP reticles seems to be based on a misapplied understanding of the various functions of a rifle scope. No doubt fuelled by an uncritical acceptance of advertising propaganda which always works when it hits the right button.
For sensible discussion some things must be clearly understood.
With FFP the reticle stays a constant size relative to the target image at all magnifications. Put another way, it subtends a constant dimension (or MOA) covering the target. To say the reticle gets bigger at larger magnifications is an error of fact and indicates one has succumbed to an advertising (if not optical) illusion .
With SFP the reticle is not subject to magnification so it appears constant irrespective of magnification. Put another way, it subtends a varying dimension (or MOA) covering the target.
One of the real advantages of FFP is rarely touted because it is probably too difficult for a typical advertising target to comprehend.
Look at the cross section diagram of a scope put up by bladeracer and note the difference in physical distance of either reticle the user's eye.
It should be immediately apparent the advantage FFP confers is a reduced susceptibility to inaccuracy due to minor variations in the shooter's eye position.

[TassieTiger]

^^^^ as a person who has just been through a saga with paralaxx / broken scope - I cannot emphasise enough how important this Point has become to me...

[Vicko]

Straightshooter - it might be semantics, but a FFP reticle does indeed get bigger at larger magnification.
As it's staying constant with the target image it has to... both the target image and the reticle get bigger at larger magnification.

FFP - the reticle stays constant with the target image, both of which grow larger as magnification increases and FOV decreases.
SFP - the reticle stays constant with the FOV through the scope, so only the target image grows larger as magnification increases.

Thats an excellent point regarding the physical distance to the shooters eye and one I admit I had not even considered how paralax would be affected. Thankyou!

I take it that you're a FFP fan - do you use them across hunting AND target work?