Thoughts on FFP vs SFP

[FiveString]

Just wondering how satisfied you who have moved from a SFP scope to a FFP are. I recently purchased a SWFA FFP - maybe I haven't spent enough time with it yet, but I'd say the jury is still out. Maybe the variance in reticle thickness is my trepidation? Have you warmed up to the new format over time? Preferences for airgun use?

 

[L.Leon]

I’m still warming up to my Aztec Emerald 5.5x25x50 FFP. The center dot of the reticle remains clear and the hash marks/cross hair are thin at 25x. I cannot reference the holdovers at anything under 10x and don’t see the point of trying. At lower magnification I’m using the center of the crosshairs and not holding over anyway. Haven’t been able to use it on pest birds yet, but have made kills on rats from 15 to 50 yards, at 5x and 25x in a dimly lit barn. The reticle has me sold, 1 m.o.a. of clearance all around, pretty much put the dot on critter bracket him in thwack! So far I’m really liking it for my pesting needs. The marketing that the mil dot/m.o.a. spacing is true at all magnifications is well and good, but not really applicable at the lower settings. My next scope will also be a FFP.

 

[DeutschKSK]

Now that I got an FFP I won’t go back to SFP. I love being able to have the same point of impact when I increase or decrease magnicarikn levels. I got a 6-24 and I can see the reticle just fine on all levels. I rarely use 6x anyways. FFP has been around for a very long time, and it’s great. Other than the reticle sizing, works the same as any other scope. 

 

[r1lover]

I have never owned a FFP scope and never will. My AG scopes are always set at max magnification (up to 20X) even when shooting indoors. The only time I turn the magnification down is when I am shooting far away targets and I need more holdover than my mil dots/hashes can accommodate at max magnification (I shoot springers, some with relatively low velocities and loopy trajectories.) Being able to turn the power down while keeping a full FOV worth of mil dots/hashes makes those longer shots possible. Can't do that with a FFP scope.

 

[BeemanR7]

What I particularly like about FFP is that it is impossible for the POI to change when you change magnification on a variable power scope. That eliminates one great variable. On a SFP scope, sometimes the scope changes POI when you change power. That can't happen on a FFP.

Also, the reticle on a FFP scope shrinks and grows and remains the same proportion as the target when you change magnification. This is particularly advantageous to me because I do most of my shooting at night. If I can't see the reticle, all I have to do is increase magnification and the reticle grows in size and it becomes easier to see at night. Many times this allows me to take prey without turning on my flashlight and risk spooking the animal. 

Another advantage of FFP is that you don't have to set the magnification at a certain power for the range markings to be accurate. 

The only downside that I can see of FFP scopes is getting one with the optimal size markings so that they're not too small to see at low power, and not too thick at high power. This is a matter of perception that can only be determined by the individual shooter. What line thickness works best for one shooter may not work so well for another. I think manufacturers of FFP scopes should state in their advertising the measured size of the reticle markings so that shooters can know before they buy.

 

[edosan]

Now that I got an FFP I won’t go back to SFP. I love being able to have the same point of impact when I increase or decrease magnicarikn levels. I got a 6-24 and I can see the reticle just fine on all levels. I rarely use 6x anyways. FFP has been around for a very long time, and it’s great. Other than the reticle sizing, works the same as any other scope. 

Yeah, this! 100%

 

[bdzjlz]

As recently posted on AGN, I purchased a Hawke 6-24x56 Sidewinder FFP to replace one of my Hawke Airmax Scopes that I sold with one of my AA rifles. Like DeutschKSK, I will never go back. The reticle is more clear, and I love the fact that the POI never changes. I am not certain that I can go so far as to say it makes me a better shot, but it is certainly more convenient and far more intuitive. Plus as a side bar, I really like the way the turrets lock and having both green and red illumination with this scope. It is worth every penny I paid for it.

 

[bubblerboy64]

Personal preference . You know a ten power scope with a decent reticle would work for the vast majority of my shooting but it’s nice to have options. Think about scopes and how they have developed. Pretty amazing . Night vision is on the horizon for me. $700 give or take not many years back thousands and not worth all that much. 

I’m looking for improvements in barrel and rifling technology as our next major advancement. When the barrels are as good as the scopes we’ll have no excuses for misses.

 

[cmatera]

The jury is still out for me as well. Just got my first FFP scope, and bought the same in SFP. My problem is more likely to be the reticle is too small at close ranges.

 

[Loren]

I have a couple of FFP scopes and I'm not sold on them yet....maybe just years of SFP use and like the constant reticle size they provide.

 

[FredAZ]

Depends on how you adjust for drop and windage.

I like to use the turrets which then allows a [preferred] constant-size, clutter-free SFP reticle....and BTW, also lower cost.

 

[bubblerboy64]

One thing I do know at least for me those Christmas Tree reticles can get confusing.

More is not always better.

The critical thing for me is eye relief and clarity. I hunt ground hogs and prairie dogs and if you have a scope which allows you to spot your shots it’s a big advantage . Eye relief isn’t talked about much but it’s a critical component of what makes a good optic usable. Binoculars, rifle scopes and especially spotting scopes. I hate having to fight to get your eyes into correct position and or being forced to have the scope rearly close to your eye. Big advantage to the 30 mm tubes and lower power. Of course with a air rifle no recoil (pcp)

 

[JimNM]

I have both. I like them both. FFP 4-12x for hunting, SFP 4-12x for paper punch.



Put that in your preconceived notion and smoke it. We can have two favorite things at the same time. I don't have to choose!

 

[Scotchmo]

I have never owned a FFP scope and never will. My AG scopes are always set at max magnification (up to 20X) even when shooting indoors. The only time I turn the magnification down is when I am shooting far away targets and I need more holdover than my mil dots/hashes can accommodate at max magnification (I shoot springers, some with relatively low velocities and loopy trajectories.) Being able to turn the power down while keeping a full FOV worth of mil dots/hashes makes those longer shots possible. Can't do that with a FFP scope.

Can't do that with SOME FFP scopes.

Many (not all) FFP reticles span a greater % of the FOV. It is certainly possible to design a reticle to use the full FOV at all magnifications in an FFP scope.

Here is one example:

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1068/3076/products/6-24x50-g3reticle.jpg

80moa of holdover is much more than I would ever use in an airgun.

It's not really a shortcoming of FFP. Your complaint has more to do with specific reticle patterns.

 

[r1lover]

Scotchmo,

That is indeed an awesome FFP reticle and I stand corrected; I see Bushnell makes that g3. I could definitely live with that if it came in a scope that focused to 10 yds. I see in their literature that not all the FFP scopes' minimum parallax adjustments have been determined yet. Thanks for the info.

 

[LDP]

I have a couple ffp scopes and they dont make adjusting for drop any easier than my sfp scopes.. Its personal preference if you like one over the other. A ffp scope does nothing for me except makes a harder to see reticle on low power and a reticle thats thicker than I like on full power. I have one ffp scope that does come pretty close on full power for reticle thickness as my sfp scopes but its almost useless on low power if the background isnt light colored and in lower light conditions like morning or evening. The two ffp scopes I have are a Vortex pst gen1 6-24x and a Bushnell ers elite tactical 3.5-21 power. I just dont see the value of a ffp over a sfp since I click adjust for my holdover. If I dont click adjust I still dont have to worry about poi change with power since all my sfp scopes range at max magnification. I only use max magnification so my holdovers are always correct with my dope card.

I just range my target and then look at my dope card. My dope card lists moa or mil drop depending on the scope and a column for wind dope for a 10 mph crosswind at 90 degrees. So if my dope card says I have a 3.5 moa/mil drop at 500 yds I can either hold over 3.5 moa/mil or click in 3.5 moa/mil. Thats not going to be any easier with a ffp scope. If I used my scopes reticle to range targets I would use a ffp scope in mil. I dont range with the scopes reticle so it doesnt come into play for my shooting.

 

[Centercut]

I think, as has been already said, it boils down to personal preference. If you’re a holdover guy, FFP makes it easier since the cal. Mag is the same for each power as the reticle grows and shrinks. 

If you’re a clicker, and dial in your elevation for a given yardage, FFP gains you nothing and you have to put up with a tiny reticle at lower powers. 

I’ve had both and prefer the SFP scopes...

 

[Smok3y]

Lots of great answers here, and as many have said, it comes down to personal preference. I prefer FFP, but I like the ability to go high in magnification at a much cheaper price with SFP. 

It depends on how you are using it. If you are at one distance most all the time or never change your magnification, SFP May be better. I do like SFP for bench.

If you are up for different distances, either are a possibility depending on how you like to adjust as Centercut said. I personally prefer FFP for this because I find it quicker to adjust with the reticle and I find less chance of missing count on the reticle. 

Also, make sure you know what type of reticle you want. I personally think you should choose the reticle design first. Not all FFP scopes have Christmas trees, but SFP rarely have them. I prefer minimal and both have them.

Don’t be afraid to test many. We all started out thinking we were going to find the perfect on the first time. But you figure out what you like and don’t like.

 

[ackuric]

FFP is all I'll ever place on my rifle. The do have an 'ideal' zoom range where the reticle looks and functions best, for example my 6-24 athlon argos for me has an ideal range of 10-18x, over 18 the reticle takes up too much of the viewing area and begins to drop off, under 10 and the reticle is a bit too small. I still use 6x or so for spotting, and zoom in to desired magnification based on distance and don't have to worry about shot placement due to varied magnification where as with my SFP scope I do have to calculate scope magnification into pellet drop. The other benefit is being able to fine tune the reticle to your desire with magnification per the distance you're shooting. Its nice being able to reduce the clutter and thickness of the reticle lines if you wish. The major downsides to FFP are the added weight due to how they function, and the added price, also due to their function and IMO superiority. Just my 2 cents.

 

[FiveString]

Well Thanks to all for your thoughts - I might have guessed it would be very subjective. I'm going to stick with it for a while - I just have the one SWFA FFP and the rest are SFP. The next scope I'll likely try will be a fixed power, probably 10x. Thanks again.