Talk me into a FFP scope if you can.
- Thread starter Z
- Start date
Buster Hindend
New member
As for me, I can't imagine shooting long range without FFP
Yes the reticle is small or fine a low end
But if shooting long range I have mine at 18-20 X and don't use the low end magnification
The thing for me with FFP is that IF you have mirage and have to lower your power a little, the reticle markings are still correct. Most guys dial for elevation and hold for wind. So if you have a 25X scope and you back it down to 20X the reticle markings for windage (and elevation) are still correct. Whereas with SFP, the mil or moa markings would only be correct at full power or with some, near full power. So if you needed to lower power because of mirage, your windage markings would not be correct with SFP.
No one should have to talk you into anything, but I bet if you tried FFP at long range, you could see its benefits.
Yes the reticle is small or fine a low end
But if shooting long range I have mine at 18-20 X and don't use the low end magnification
The thing for me with FFP is that IF you have mirage and have to lower your power a little, the reticle markings are still correct. Most guys dial for elevation and hold for wind. So if you have a 25X scope and you back it down to 20X the reticle markings for windage (and elevation) are still correct. Whereas with SFP, the mil or moa markings would only be correct at full power or with some, near full power. So if you needed to lower power because of mirage, your windage markings would not be correct with SFP.
No one should have to talk you into anything, but I bet if you tried FFP at long range, you could see its benefits.
venatic
Active member
Buster laid it out pretty well. Just weigh out the advantages of both and see what fits your situation.
There are reasons most hunting scopes are made SFP and you pointed out the main reason.
I think I have 5 FFP and then the rest are SFP. I sold a couple of FFP scopes because a SFP was all I really needed for that application. If I were shooting LR target/steel occasionally and hunted with the rifle a lot then the scenario Buster pointed out is one of the few advantages of FFP.
I have two FFP that the low end power is 3X but my old eyes can barely see the reticle much less read any hash numbers etc. I have to dial up to 5-6x just to see the reticle well enough to use it. So if hunting in timber that can be a disadvantage.
Remember I am not trying to talk you out of FFP because I like them. They have their place but for me about 95% of the time it makes no difference as I don't normally use my reticle to measure target size and either dial for distance or if using the reticle for holdover put it on the correct power.
I summary get what you like and then change the argument to Mils or MOA
There are reasons most hunting scopes are made SFP and you pointed out the main reason.
I think I have 5 FFP and then the rest are SFP. I sold a couple of FFP scopes because a SFP was all I really needed for that application. If I were shooting LR target/steel occasionally and hunted with the rifle a lot then the scenario Buster pointed out is one of the few advantages of FFP.
I have two FFP that the low end power is 3X but my old eyes can barely see the reticle much less read any hash numbers etc. I have to dial up to 5-6x just to see the reticle well enough to use it. So if hunting in timber that can be a disadvantage.
Remember I am not trying to talk you out of FFP because I like them. They have their place but for me about 95% of the time it makes no difference as I don't normally use my reticle to measure target size and either dial for distance or if using the reticle for holdover put it on the correct power.
I summary get what you like and then change the argument to Mils or MOA
Originally Posted By: 3DHUSKERIf you are going to read and measure misses or correct by holding at what ever power you are using then you want a FFP.
The only SFP scopes I have anymore are for shooting coyotes at 300 or less yards and they will eventually be gone. FFP is just too useful not to have.
Yep, it's pretty handy.
The only SFP scopes I have anymore are for shooting coyotes at 300 or less yards and they will eventually be gone. FFP is just too useful not to have.
Yep, it's pretty handy.
coleridge
New member
Some guys that know what they are talking about have gave some great advice & fact. After reading the thread sounds like they have likely talked you into the FFP.
However, just to give you something to think about... I'll give my opinion (yeah that's worth exactly what you have paid...
)
I REALLY like the ideal of a reticle that has the same stadia at any power range. As stated... Low light, severe mirage, FOV; there are many reasons you may want to "turn it down". It is also VERY handy for those times the power ring gets bumped/turned just a little. There is a LOT to like about it.
That said, personally I much prefer a SFP for my type of shooting. FFP works well on typical size steel and other big targets but as the power increases the reticle gets SO dark & SO thick it covers up a lot of acreage at distance. Like I said, no problem for big game hunting or big steel but for anything smaller than a skeet at 500 yards, your in the dark. I agree that's not typical for most shooters to shoot stuff that small but depending on what discipline (target) you are looking to shoot at, something to think about.
Obviously there are trade off's in each one. The FFP is a little more fool proof. However, I hear tell of guys that are plenty successful with SFP at long ranges (even when time is a concern). You just kind of have to keep your head wrapped around it a little more. If you get real good at it, it's possible to use that in your favor & come down half power & use the stadia x2 if needed (a 1MOA hash at 22X is a 2 MOA hash at 11 power). It is a linear comparison & the stadia can be used on any power setting in a SFP but it can get complicated (little bit of may involved). There are ballistic programs that can help.
Just like venatic stated... It's a lot like the MIL/MOA thing. If a guy prefers one over the other, he can make it work. Might just be a little extra one way or the other.
REMEMBER... if all else fails with the reticle; there is always a knob on top of the scope that can help!
I see absolutely no benefit of a FFP reticle without stadia (standard duplex or #4 style), or if your going to dial & not use the stadia.
Keep the change
However, just to give you something to think about... I'll give my opinion (yeah that's worth exactly what you have paid...
I REALLY like the ideal of a reticle that has the same stadia at any power range. As stated... Low light, severe mirage, FOV; there are many reasons you may want to "turn it down". It is also VERY handy for those times the power ring gets bumped/turned just a little. There is a LOT to like about it.
That said, personally I much prefer a SFP for my type of shooting. FFP works well on typical size steel and other big targets but as the power increases the reticle gets SO dark & SO thick it covers up a lot of acreage at distance. Like I said, no problem for big game hunting or big steel but for anything smaller than a skeet at 500 yards, your in the dark. I agree that's not typical for most shooters to shoot stuff that small but depending on what discipline (target) you are looking to shoot at, something to think about.
Obviously there are trade off's in each one. The FFP is a little more fool proof. However, I hear tell of guys that are plenty successful with SFP at long ranges (even when time is a concern). You just kind of have to keep your head wrapped around it a little more. If you get real good at it, it's possible to use that in your favor & come down half power & use the stadia x2 if needed (a 1MOA hash at 22X is a 2 MOA hash at 11 power). It is a linear comparison & the stadia can be used on any power setting in a SFP but it can get complicated (little bit of may involved). There are ballistic programs that can help.
Just like venatic stated... It's a lot like the MIL/MOA thing. If a guy prefers one over the other, he can make it work. Might just be a little extra one way or the other.
REMEMBER... if all else fails with the reticle; there is always a knob on top of the scope that can help!
I see absolutely no benefit of a FFP reticle without stadia (standard duplex or #4 style), or if your going to dial & not use the stadia.
Keep the change
sandy hicks
New member
I use sfp almost exclusively. The 300 win. R5 wears a ffp. For the money saved I feel like you can learn to use the sfp by shooting more and therefore benefit twice by getting trigger time and knowing your equipment. To me having a known distance and a wind meter negates the ranging argument that you have with ffp scopes.
Varminterror
New member
I think they've been covered, but here are my perceived advantages for FFP for the type of shooting that I do:
1) Covers the same amount of the target no matter what zoom setting
2) Saves time ranging with your reticle
3) No hold over correction for zoom setting
(Recognizing that 2 & 3 are really factors of 1).
Originally Posted By: ZLooking at shooting to 1000 yards and can't convince myself of the FFP scope. It seems that on low power the FFP reticle is very fine. Correct me where I am wrong please.
Technically, the FFP reticle is just as "fine" relative to the target no matter what zoom level you're at. An FFP reticle will always cover the same amount of target (subtend the same angle in your FOV) no matter what magnification setting you choose. It'll look coarser or finer to your eye, but relative to the target, it does not change. In an SFP scope, the reticle covers more target when zoomed out, less of the target when zoomed in. WHAT THAT MEANS TO ME: Say I have 2 3-9x40mm scopes, one in SFP one in FFP. If a reticle covers 1/4MOA - recognizing that reticles in SFP scopes are usually calibrated against their HIGHEST magnification, then both scopes will cover 1/4" of a target at 100yrds, 2.5" of a target at 1,000yrds when zoomed to 9x. Now, zoom out to 3x. The FFP scope still covers 1/4" of the target, but the SFP scope now covers 3/4" of the target! At 1,000yrds, the FFP covers the same 2.5", whereas the reticle on the SFP covers 7.5".
FFP scopes also save a little time if you're a shooter that uses their reticle for ranging of unknown distance, known size targets. SFP scopes can be used to range also, but again, they are only calibrated to ONE magnification range. WHAT THAT MEANS FOR ME: If I am zoomed to the calibration setting, then there is no difference, but if I'm not, then I have to either change my zoom, range, then change my zoom back - wastes time and might lose the target as I zoom in and out. For an FFP, the subtensions never change, so the same ranging calc's work no matter what zoom you're on. The other option for an SFP scope is to build in a correction factor based on zoom setting. If your reticle is calibrated to 9x, but you're at 3x, then you can divide by 3, but if you're at 5x, you have to divide by nine, multiply by 5... That takes time too AND it assumes that your magnification zoom is perfectly linear - I have a couple scopes that I know are NOT linear for zoom (meaning 24x setting is not actually 4x zoomed from 6x setting).
So combining both of those points, a real world example is this: leading a running coyote. With an SFP scope, you have to pick how far ahead - in inches or feet - that you want to hold, then estimate based on the target appearance in your FOV. Comparing the same exact inches of hold at 3x vs. 9x will fall on a different location for the reticle. For an FFP scope, you can pick a hold per hundred yards, mentally note that in your scope, and it will always be at the same reference point on the reticle, no matter what zoom setting you're on.
Since most of us consider sighting a visual action, and most of us start with cheaper SFP scopes, it does throw most of us off a bit at first to see the reticle change size in our scope, but you do get used to it. Is it worth a lot to most shooters? Eh, maybe not.
So the largest advantage is for guys shooting quick succession at unknown distance targets, especially movers, or guys that might shoot from different magnification settings frequently.
1) Covers the same amount of the target no matter what zoom setting
2) Saves time ranging with your reticle
3) No hold over correction for zoom setting
(Recognizing that 2 & 3 are really factors of 1).
Originally Posted By: ZLooking at shooting to 1000 yards and can't convince myself of the FFP scope. It seems that on low power the FFP reticle is very fine. Correct me where I am wrong please.
Technically, the FFP reticle is just as "fine" relative to the target no matter what zoom level you're at. An FFP reticle will always cover the same amount of target (subtend the same angle in your FOV) no matter what magnification setting you choose. It'll look coarser or finer to your eye, but relative to the target, it does not change. In an SFP scope, the reticle covers more target when zoomed out, less of the target when zoomed in. WHAT THAT MEANS TO ME: Say I have 2 3-9x40mm scopes, one in SFP one in FFP. If a reticle covers 1/4MOA - recognizing that reticles in SFP scopes are usually calibrated against their HIGHEST magnification, then both scopes will cover 1/4" of a target at 100yrds, 2.5" of a target at 1,000yrds when zoomed to 9x. Now, zoom out to 3x. The FFP scope still covers 1/4" of the target, but the SFP scope now covers 3/4" of the target! At 1,000yrds, the FFP covers the same 2.5", whereas the reticle on the SFP covers 7.5".
FFP scopes also save a little time if you're a shooter that uses their reticle for ranging of unknown distance, known size targets. SFP scopes can be used to range also, but again, they are only calibrated to ONE magnification range. WHAT THAT MEANS FOR ME: If I am zoomed to the calibration setting, then there is no difference, but if I'm not, then I have to either change my zoom, range, then change my zoom back - wastes time and might lose the target as I zoom in and out. For an FFP, the subtensions never change, so the same ranging calc's work no matter what zoom you're on. The other option for an SFP scope is to build in a correction factor based on zoom setting. If your reticle is calibrated to 9x, but you're at 3x, then you can divide by 3, but if you're at 5x, you have to divide by nine, multiply by 5... That takes time too AND it assumes that your magnification zoom is perfectly linear - I have a couple scopes that I know are NOT linear for zoom (meaning 24x setting is not actually 4x zoomed from 6x setting).
So combining both of those points, a real world example is this: leading a running coyote. With an SFP scope, you have to pick how far ahead - in inches or feet - that you want to hold, then estimate based on the target appearance in your FOV. Comparing the same exact inches of hold at 3x vs. 9x will fall on a different location for the reticle. For an FFP scope, you can pick a hold per hundred yards, mentally note that in your scope, and it will always be at the same reference point on the reticle, no matter what zoom setting you're on.
Since most of us consider sighting a visual action, and most of us start with cheaper SFP scopes, it does throw most of us off a bit at first to see the reticle change size in our scope, but you do get used to it. Is it worth a lot to most shooters? Eh, maybe not.
So the largest advantage is for guys shooting quick succession at unknown distance targets, especially movers, or guys that might shoot from different magnification settings frequently.
Last edited:
Ernie, for right now it is just for fun at 1000 yard steel and paper targets. Don't see myself getting into competition. I also would like to take it out late in the coyote season when they are starting to hang up at 400-600 yards and sit on a hill and howl back but not come closer. I am looking at a Sightron S3 in a 6-24x50 with an MOA-2 reticle.
Thanks everyone for your replies and info.
Thanks everyone for your replies and info.
coleridge
New member
Originally Posted By: VarminterrorI think they've been covered, but here are my perceived advantages for FFP for the type of shooting that I do:
1) Covers the same amount of the target no matter what zoom setting
2) Saves time ranging with your reticle
3) No hold over correction for zoom setting
(Recognizing that 2 & 3 are really factors of 1).
Originally Posted By: ZLooking at shooting to 1000 yards and can't convince myself of the FFP scope. It seems that on low power the FFP reticle is very fine. Correct me where I am wrong please.
Technically, the FFP reticle is just as "fine" relative to the target no matter what zoom level you're at. An FFP reticle will always cover the same amount of target (subtend the same angle in your FOV) no matter what magnification setting you choose. It'll look coarser or finer to your eye, but relative to the target, it does not change. In an SFP scope, the reticle covers more target when zoomed out, less of the target when zoomed in. WHAT THAT MEANS TO ME: Say I have 2 3-9x40mm scopes, one in SFP one in FFP. If a reticle covers 1/4MOA - recognizing that reticles in SFP scopes are usually calibrated against their HIGHEST magnification, then both scopes will cover 1/4" of a target at 100yrds, 2.5" of a target at 1,000yrds when zoomed to 9x. Now, zoom out to 3x. The FFP scope still covers 1/4" of the target, but the SFP scope now covers 3/4" of the target! At 1,000yrds, the FFP covers the same 2.5", whereas the reticle on the SFP covers 7.5".
FFP scopes also save a little time if you're a shooter that uses their reticle for ranging of unknown distance, known size targets. SFP scopes can be used to range also, but again, they are only calibrated to ONE magnification range. WHAT THAT MEANS FOR ME: If I am zoomed to the calibration setting, then there is no difference, but if I'm not, then I have to either change my zoom, range, then change my zoom back - wastes time and might lose the target as I zoom in and out. For an FFP, the subtensions never change, so the same ranging calc's work no matter what zoom you're on. The other option for an SFP scope is to build in a correction factor based on zoom setting. If your reticle is calibrated to 9x, but you're at 3x, then you can divide by 3, but if you're at 5x, you have to divide by nine, multiply by 5... That takes time too AND it assumes that your magnification zoom is perfectly linear - I have a couple scopes that I know are NOT linear for zoom (meaning 24x setting is not actually 4x zoomed from 6x setting).
So combining both of those points, a real world example is this: leading a running coyote. With an SFP scope, you have to pick how far ahead - in inches or feet - that you want to hold, then estimate based on the target appearance in your FOV. Comparing the same exact inches of hold at 3x vs. 9x will fall on a different location for the reticle. For an FFP scope, you can pick a hold per hundred yards, mentally note that in your scope, and it will always be at the same reference point on the reticle, no matter what zoom setting you're on.
Since most of us consider sighting a visual action, and most of us start with cheaper SFP scopes, it does throw most of us off a bit at first to see the reticle change size in our scope, but you do get used to it. Is it worth a lot to most shooters? Eh, maybe not.
So the largest advantage is for guys shooting quick succession at unknown distance targets, especially movers, or guys that might shoot from different magnification settings frequently.
While i agree with what your saying... Your example is unrealistic. Do you know how fine a reticle would have to be to only cover 1/4 MOA at 100 yard on 3x (typicle reticles cover ~3/4moa on 9x)? It would be unusable. Get into a more variable 6-24 type zoom (seldom guys shoot a 3-9 at long range, and I'm unaware of one with stadia) the reticle at full power covers one [beeep] of a lot more area than 1/4 moa. Thats because an 18x change! Yes it still covers the same area on 6x as it does on 24x but the reticle is 18x thinner also (comparitivley on the 2nd place). They have to make it thick on 24 so it's still viewable on 6. I want the reticle thickness at 6x but the zoom of 24 so i can pick the spot I'm aiming at. Not "at" the target... Or the target completely covered But again. That's me and my preference. Others are different.
One could argue that a straight power scope is better. Personally i just soon have one as a FFP. It has the EXACT same advantages y'all have gave for ffp (the variable just acts like a digital zoom, your still seeing the EXACT same thing, it's just magnified with less FOV). The straight power just adds ease & less fuss...
(note the sarcasm & irony here)
I'm not bashing FFP scopes, yes they have advantages. It's just worth noting they have disadvantages also.
1) Covers the same amount of the target no matter what zoom setting
2) Saves time ranging with your reticle
3) No hold over correction for zoom setting
(Recognizing that 2 & 3 are really factors of 1).
Originally Posted By: ZLooking at shooting to 1000 yards and can't convince myself of the FFP scope. It seems that on low power the FFP reticle is very fine. Correct me where I am wrong please.
Technically, the FFP reticle is just as "fine" relative to the target no matter what zoom level you're at. An FFP reticle will always cover the same amount of target (subtend the same angle in your FOV) no matter what magnification setting you choose. It'll look coarser or finer to your eye, but relative to the target, it does not change. In an SFP scope, the reticle covers more target when zoomed out, less of the target when zoomed in. WHAT THAT MEANS TO ME: Say I have 2 3-9x40mm scopes, one in SFP one in FFP. If a reticle covers 1/4MOA - recognizing that reticles in SFP scopes are usually calibrated against their HIGHEST magnification, then both scopes will cover 1/4" of a target at 100yrds, 2.5" of a target at 1,000yrds when zoomed to 9x. Now, zoom out to 3x. The FFP scope still covers 1/4" of the target, but the SFP scope now covers 3/4" of the target! At 1,000yrds, the FFP covers the same 2.5", whereas the reticle on the SFP covers 7.5".
FFP scopes also save a little time if you're a shooter that uses their reticle for ranging of unknown distance, known size targets. SFP scopes can be used to range also, but again, they are only calibrated to ONE magnification range. WHAT THAT MEANS FOR ME: If I am zoomed to the calibration setting, then there is no difference, but if I'm not, then I have to either change my zoom, range, then change my zoom back - wastes time and might lose the target as I zoom in and out. For an FFP, the subtensions never change, so the same ranging calc's work no matter what zoom you're on. The other option for an SFP scope is to build in a correction factor based on zoom setting. If your reticle is calibrated to 9x, but you're at 3x, then you can divide by 3, but if you're at 5x, you have to divide by nine, multiply by 5... That takes time too AND it assumes that your magnification zoom is perfectly linear - I have a couple scopes that I know are NOT linear for zoom (meaning 24x setting is not actually 4x zoomed from 6x setting).
So combining both of those points, a real world example is this: leading a running coyote. With an SFP scope, you have to pick how far ahead - in inches or feet - that you want to hold, then estimate based on the target appearance in your FOV. Comparing the same exact inches of hold at 3x vs. 9x will fall on a different location for the reticle. For an FFP scope, you can pick a hold per hundred yards, mentally note that in your scope, and it will always be at the same reference point on the reticle, no matter what zoom setting you're on.
Since most of us consider sighting a visual action, and most of us start with cheaper SFP scopes, it does throw most of us off a bit at first to see the reticle change size in our scope, but you do get used to it. Is it worth a lot to most shooters? Eh, maybe not.
So the largest advantage is for guys shooting quick succession at unknown distance targets, especially movers, or guys that might shoot from different magnification settings frequently.
While i agree with what your saying... Your example is unrealistic. Do you know how fine a reticle would have to be to only cover 1/4 MOA at 100 yard on 3x (typicle reticles cover ~3/4moa on 9x)? It would be unusable. Get into a more variable 6-24 type zoom (seldom guys shoot a 3-9 at long range, and I'm unaware of one with stadia) the reticle at full power covers one [beeep] of a lot more area than 1/4 moa. Thats because an 18x change! Yes it still covers the same area on 6x as it does on 24x but the reticle is 18x thinner also (comparitivley on the 2nd place). They have to make it thick on 24 so it's still viewable on 6. I want the reticle thickness at 6x but the zoom of 24 so i can pick the spot I'm aiming at. Not "at" the target... Or the target completely covered But again. That's me and my preference. Others are different.
One could argue that a straight power scope is better. Personally i just soon have one as a FFP. It has the EXACT same advantages y'all have gave for ffp (the variable just acts like a digital zoom, your still seeing the EXACT same thing, it's just magnified with less FOV). The straight power just adds ease & less fuss...
I'm not bashing FFP scopes, yes they have advantages. It's just worth noting they have disadvantages also.
skinney
Director
Originally Posted By: Buster Hindend
No one should have to talk you into anything, but I bet if you tried FFP at long range, you could see its benefits.
There is a lot of win in this comment. Having used an NXS for about 15 years now, and stepping up to the USO line that have the FFP option, it didn't take me long to see the benefits. I prefer a floating center cross hair reticle so that when or IF you need it on full mag, your cross hairs will not cover your target, of course certain rets have a different thickness, regardless I'm sure you will look elaborately into what you plan on investing in.
No one should have to talk you into anything, but I bet if you tried FFP at long range, you could see its benefits.
There is a lot of win in this comment. Having used an NXS for about 15 years now, and stepping up to the USO line that have the FFP option, it didn't take me long to see the benefits. I prefer a floating center cross hair reticle so that when or IF you need it on full mag, your cross hairs will not cover your target, of course certain rets have a different thickness, regardless I'm sure you will look elaborately into what you plan on investing in.
Varminterror
New member
Originally Posted By: coleridgeWhile i agree with what your saying... Your example is unrealistic.
Yup. Just pulled some parameters out of my @ss to illuminate the disadvantage that I see for FFP scopes. Doesn't matter if it's a 3-9x or 6-24, or 8-32x, FFP will cover the same subtension of target at any magnification, and an SFP doesn't.
Yup. Just pulled some parameters out of my @ss to illuminate the disadvantage that I see for FFP scopes. Doesn't matter if it's a 3-9x or 6-24, or 8-32x, FFP will cover the same subtension of target at any magnification, and an SFP doesn't.
Varminterror
New member
Originally Posted By: coleridgeRight. That's the part i agreed with.
However, please enlighten me who makes a FFP reticle that covers only 1/4 moa. It would completely disapear at low power.
I'll say it again - I just pulled numbers out of my @ss without caring whether I referenced anything real, much like the old math class problems about two trains, one going 200mph and one going 40mph - when will they hit head on?... Sitting at the airport when I wrote the response, didn't dig into details, didn't feel it necessary. Still don't.
I also specifically stated that the reticles in SFP scopes tend to be calibrated against the highest magnification setting. Never said that about FFP's. I only applied the 1/4MOA (again PULLED OUT OF MY @ss with no intent to be accurate to any real world scope) for the FFP because I used it for the SFP. The math is easy in my head, so I used it.
If you want to keep picking at it, then enlighten me on how the principle of what I illustrated was wrong. 1/4MOA or 400MOA, it doesn't matter. 3-9x or 8-32x, it doesn't matter. The same principle applies - the reticle in SFP's will cover different subtensions of the target at different magnification settings, reticles in FFP's won't.
People find the dumbest schitt to argue about. Again I PULLED NUMBERS OUT OF MY @SS TO ILLUSTRATE THE THEORY - SHOW ME HOW THE THEORY IS WRONG AND THEN WE'D ACTUALLY HAVE A RELEVANT CONVERSATION.
However, please enlighten me who makes a FFP reticle that covers only 1/4 moa. It would completely disapear at low power.
I'll say it again - I just pulled numbers out of my @ss without caring whether I referenced anything real, much like the old math class problems about two trains, one going 200mph and one going 40mph - when will they hit head on?... Sitting at the airport when I wrote the response, didn't dig into details, didn't feel it necessary. Still don't.
I also specifically stated that the reticles in SFP scopes tend to be calibrated against the highest magnification setting. Never said that about FFP's. I only applied the 1/4MOA (again PULLED OUT OF MY @ss with no intent to be accurate to any real world scope) for the FFP because I used it for the SFP. The math is easy in my head, so I used it.
If you want to keep picking at it, then enlighten me on how the principle of what I illustrated was wrong. 1/4MOA or 400MOA, it doesn't matter. 3-9x or 8-32x, it doesn't matter. The same principle applies - the reticle in SFP's will cover different subtensions of the target at different magnification settings, reticles in FFP's won't.
People find the dumbest schitt to argue about. Again I PULLED NUMBERS OUT OF MY @SS TO ILLUSTRATE THE THEORY - SHOW ME HOW THE THEORY IS WRONG AND THEN WE'D ACTUALLY HAVE A RELEVANT CONVERSATION.
Last edited:
coleridge
New member
I'm not sure why you are trying to argue... I said i agreed with what you were saying about FFP. However, i guess you missed my point of why FFP can be not as desirable as SFP for small targets at long ranges.
FFP are relitivley "thick" on max power simply because of what you have stated.