Reading all this has got me so confused I can’t even remember if I shoot with FFP or SFP, my head hurts
Is FFP the new 6.5 Creed?
- Thread starter 4xforfun
- Start date
I agree ands this is my main issue with FFP. It was also my issue with a couple of 1/8 MOA dot target scopes I tried to use for varmints maybe 30 years ago.
urbanrifleman
Site $$ Sponsor
FFP has obvious distinct advantages in certain circumstances. Except for exclusively shooting targets, FFP is the superior system across the board...
My drop reticles have MOA grids that are MOA at all magnifications. So you can dial down the magnification for finding a target and then zoom in to shoot it. And the dope in the reticle is always the same. I can spend a whole day shooting prairie dogs and never touch the knobs one time and have kills at all different distances without a rangefinder. I can simply use my reticle to range the dog by its size and then dope the wind in the radical and pull the trigger and get a hit.
I shot varmints with second focal plane for 20 years and then when I switched to FFP there was no comparison in the superiority of the system.
My drop reticles have MOA grids that are MOA at all magnifications. So you can dial down the magnification for finding a target and then zoom in to shoot it. And the dope in the reticle is always the same. I can spend a whole day shooting prairie dogs and never touch the knobs one time and have kills at all different distances without a rangefinder. I can simply use my reticle to range the dog by its size and then dope the wind in the radical and pull the trigger and get a hit.
I shot varmints with second focal plane for 20 years and then when I switched to FFP there was no comparison in the superiority of the system.
OK not FFP or SFP but this experience I will share here does in fact have some bearing on the discussion concerning reticle size at different magnification.
I put together a rifle to play 1K yards and not wanting to dump a whole bunch of money (I know) but not wanting a total crap scope either, I was looking for used and was on SWFA’s sample list. They had one of their SS scopes in 20X fixed, with extras. Flip open caps, a scope level, sunshades. Graded Demo B. Price was good and I had heard good things about them so I got it. I thought it was a pretty decent scope especially for the price. The reticle was nearly perfect in my opinion, their “Quad MOA.” Simple, the one MOA ticks spaced nicely apart and plain to see, the numbers very easy to read at a glance, 20 MOA in each direction nicely filling the field of view. (edit, just looked at it actually 30 MOA in the vertical) Lines just right, not too thick, not too thin. Wow I like this!
Only gripe at first was a very unforgiving eye box. And then one time I went to the range and forgot my cheek piece setup, left it on the work bench at home. That unforgiving eye box was REALLY unforgiving without a good repeatable cheek placement.
Then I shot a match with targets from 200 yards to 1000 yards. The 200 yard targets were difficult to find in the narrow field of view. I actually fired on the wrong target in haste, because of this.
So then I thought man this reticle is perfect but if the scope was just not a 20X. I’d have a bigger eye box and a wider field of view. I had heard a lot about the SS 10X so I ordered one. THIS scope will be perfect for what I want!
Imagine my surprise when I took it out of the box and looked through it and saw the reticle was half the size! Well, duh! No where near as useable at a quick glance as the 20X. I have to study it for a second to figure out the graduations. The 20 MOA in each direction only takes up half the FOV. You get just plain unmarked lines for the rest of it.
So yeah...I’m learning.
I put together a rifle to play 1K yards and not wanting to dump a whole bunch of money (I know) but not wanting a total crap scope either, I was looking for used and was on SWFA’s sample list. They had one of their SS scopes in 20X fixed, with extras. Flip open caps, a scope level, sunshades. Graded Demo B. Price was good and I had heard good things about them so I got it. I thought it was a pretty decent scope especially for the price. The reticle was nearly perfect in my opinion, their “Quad MOA.” Simple, the one MOA ticks spaced nicely apart and plain to see, the numbers very easy to read at a glance, 20 MOA in each direction nicely filling the field of view. (edit, just looked at it actually 30 MOA in the vertical) Lines just right, not too thick, not too thin. Wow I like this!
Only gripe at first was a very unforgiving eye box. And then one time I went to the range and forgot my cheek piece setup, left it on the work bench at home. That unforgiving eye box was REALLY unforgiving without a good repeatable cheek placement.
Then I shot a match with targets from 200 yards to 1000 yards. The 200 yard targets were difficult to find in the narrow field of view. I actually fired on the wrong target in haste, because of this.
So then I thought man this reticle is perfect but if the scope was just not a 20X. I’d have a bigger eye box and a wider field of view. I had heard a lot about the SS 10X so I ordered one. THIS scope will be perfect for what I want!
Imagine my surprise when I took it out of the box and looked through it and saw the reticle was half the size! Well, duh! No where near as useable at a quick glance as the 20X. I have to study it for a second to figure out the graduations. The 20 MOA in each direction only takes up half the FOV. You get just plain unmarked lines for the rest of it.
So yeah...I’m learning.
Last edited:
Ledd Slinger
Silver $$ Contributor
FFP is not some new invention that people can redefine for modern times. Some of the first variable scopes were produced in 1930 by Zeiss and they all had FFP reticles. And they sure didn't have laser rangefinders back then so they also used them for easier ranging on different power levels. Doesn't matter what people use the design for today, it's still the same design and therefor has the same purpose and uses. Use it for hold over, ranging, or just always aim dead center and dial turrets. Who cares! Still can't redefine the FFP reticle.
I've owned, learned, and used both styles. Choose whatever you want, but don't try to act like FFP is superior when everything is based on opinion. That's all I'm saying. It's like driving a powerstroke or duramax diesel. Those engines can be good at many things and the guys driving them will swear on their lives they are best engines on the planet. But deep down inside, they know in their heart of hearts, that those duramax and powerstokes will never be as good as THE almighty Cummins. LOL!
Last edited:
Ledd Slinger
Silver $$ Contributor
Yep. Not all SFP reticles are equally as good for each person either. I like to be able to see it against a dark background but not so thick that I can't aim small. I personally prefer a floating center dot in a single thinner crosshair reticle with small MOA hash marks. Other people like many different things than I do. It's all just preference for what best suits your needs of the rifle.
Yeah fixed powers are tough that way as you will find times you need wider FOV. That is why I haven't had a fixed power scope in quite a while. I had SS scopes around 1998. Good scope for the money but didn;t care for the fixed power. A good 5-25x is a good variable power range. You can dial up when you want and dial down when needed. A few decent variable powered FFP scopes a little above the SS fixed price range. The Arken EP5 5-25 is around $530 and using their code you can get their combo pack for about $40 more and that includes rings, throwlever, level, and some other stuff. Also the new Bushnell Match Pro ED 5-30x56 is $699. The older 6-24 is only $399. Just a few of the options in the leff expensive FFP market. There are a bunch more.
EP5 5-25X56 FFP VPR Illuminated Reticle with Zero Stop - 34mm Tube
5-30x56 Long-Range Scope - Match Pro | Bushnell
Match Pro ED 5-30x56 scope features expanded magnification range from 5x all the way up to a class-leading 30x & increased objective lens size to 56mm.
www.bushnell.com
Match Pro 6-24x50 Illuminated Riflescope | Best Budget First Focal Plane Scope
Purpose-built for the competitive shooter, the Match Pro is the best budget or beginner first focal plane scope for the long range shooter. Shop online today!
www.bushnell.com
The rifle now is equipped with a Vortex 5-25 FFP. And there's things that aren't perfect about it too!
The two SS scopes sit in their boxes. So my bargain scope turned into three scopes
edit, shopped around for that vortex. best deal was a local shop at 1,299. A couple months later on sale for 999. Figures.
Last edited:
The rifle now is equipped with a Vortex 5-25 FFP. And there's things that aren't perfect about it too!
The two SS scopes sit in their boxes. So my bargain scope turned into three scopes
That happens a lot. LOL
Is the Vortex a Venom, Strike Eagle or Gen II PST?
Ledd Slinger
Silver $$ Contributor
Trijicon makes one of my favorite reticles on their newer Tenmile series scopes. It's a SFP MRAD reticle with all the features I like and even gives you the math for ranging and holdovers etched right into the glass.
If a person wants to learn SFP reticles for accurate holdovers, then they should also learn the metric system because ranging in meters and doing all your math in a 10x base with milradians on a MRAD reticle is a lot easier than MOA based scopes. Just do it all in your head.
For the scopes where I like to dial the turrets instead of use a reticle, 1/8-1/4 MOA turrets always give a much more positive feel and more accurate dialing than .1 MRAD turrets. There are some .05 MRAD turrets out there but the selection is very limited. So I'm not partial to MRAD or MOA systems because I know them both and believe they both accel better in certain areas.
If a person wants to learn SFP reticles for accurate holdovers, then they should also learn the metric system because ranging in meters and doing all your math in a 10x base with milradians on a MRAD reticle is a lot easier than MOA based scopes. Just do it all in your head.
For the scopes where I like to dial the turrets instead of use a reticle, 1/8-1/4 MOA turrets always give a much more positive feel and more accurate dialing than .1 MRAD turrets. There are some .05 MRAD turrets out there but the selection is very limited. So I'm not partial to MRAD or MOA systems because I know them both and believe they both accel better in certain areas.
PST see my edit in my last post
You do not have to use the metric system with mils. Nor is it easier. I have used mils for decades in matches and never even thought about the metric system. That's ranging and holds. Ranging targets in inch sizes and range to targets in yards. It's simple and even simplier with a Mildot Master which works with both MOA and Mils.
I looked at the Strike Eagle and it has some interesting features, chief among them is the locking turrets and the large amount of vertical adjustment. But if you used the zero stop it severely limits how much of that vertical you can actually use, if I understand it correctly. Also a 34mm tube so I'd have to buy new rings too.
Ledd Slinger
Silver $$ Contributor
??? Ok, im gonna ask a serious question here...Are you my wife under secret identity just trying to nag and harass me on here? Again, serious question...
Yeah if you put it on a 40 MOA base you only have about 6 mils below zero so it's not bad and you don;t need the zero stop ring. I didn't like it limited you to 18 mils also especially when using it on a rimfire.
Everything I own now is 34mm so not an issue for me. I had a Strike Eagle for a while and it was a good scope in that price range. Much better than the Venom. I had a PST Gen II also. Also a good scope.
Nope not your wife. LOL Just trying to keep it real for people who read this and are trying to learn.
If you want to see how the reticle changes with magnification on a FFP look at my posts here.
Post in thread 'Arken EP5 5-25X56 FFP MIL VPR Review'
https://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/arken-ep5-5-25x56-ffp-mil-vpr-review.4054609/post-38269567
Post in thread 'Arken EP5 5-25X56 FFP MIL VPR Review'
https://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/arken-ep5-5-25x56-ffp-mil-vpr-review.4054609/post-38269567
urbanrifleman
Site $$ Sponsor
Actually it's the same size. Relative to the target.
Yah, I think there's a lot of people who simply cannot wrap their brains around the fact that a first focal plane scope will tell you everything relative to the target, not relative to your eye. So if it says it's 1/8 MOA reticle it's 1/8 MOA all the time.
Honestly, if if a person could overcome all of the engineering elements that would have shortcomings over a second focal plane, there really wouldn't be any need to have second focal plane rifle scopes at all.
Not trying to be argumentative. Trying to learn. What are the engineering shortcomings to which you refer?
Ya know sometimes on forums we play the "what if you could have only X-number of whatever"...guns, chamberings and so on...Right now if I could have only one scope, of the ones I own it would be the 6-24X50 mm, illuminated MOA Christmas tree reticle, adjustable parallax, SFP. That one is the most versatile and user friendly IMHO.
One thing I wish was still popular is the objective lens adjustable parallax. I think everybody going to side parallax is not a great step forward.
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.